SCOTUS Denies Review of Patent Dispute over Groundbreaking Cancer Treatment – Blake Brittain wrote an article for Reuters explaining the Supreme Court’s decision to decline review in Ono Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc.
Slow down on Mandamus: Federal Circuit Refuses to Short Circuit Judge Albright’s Decision Process – On PatentlyO.com, Dennis Crouch posted about another mandamus venue case arriving at the Federal Circuit from Judge Albright’s Waco, Texas courtroom.
Here’s the latest.
SCOTUS Denies Review of Patent Dispute over Groundbreaking Cancer Treatment
Reported by Blake Brittain on Reuters.com
In this article on Reuters.com, Blake Brittain describes the decision by the Supreme Court to decline to review a decision of the Federal Circuit, which ruled “that the contributions of Dana-Farber’s Gordon Freeman and collaborator Clive Wood . . . were significant enough to justify listing them as co-inventors of . . . patents . . . relat[ing] to stimulating a person’s immune system to attack cancer cells.” Brittain notes that the Supreme Court mentioned in its denial that Justice Stephen Breyer “didn’t take part in the decision,” likely because he has been “a Dana-Farber trustee and [his] wife was a child psychologist at the hospital.” See our coverage of the case, Ono Pharmaceutical Co. v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc., here.
Slow down on Mandamus: Federal Circuit Refuses to Short Circuit Judge Albright’s Decision Process
Reported by Dennis Crouch on PatentlyO.com
In his blog post, Dennis Crouch reports on the Federal Circuit’s recent denial of mandamus in a patent case, In re Bose, “holding that the defendant-petitioner had failed to show the requisite extraordinary cause” to order the Western District of Texas to stay all proceedings pending a decision on a motion to transfer. Crouch explains that the Federal Circuit “found no serious harm associated with allowing a case to incrementally move forward while parties await outcome of the venue motion.” Further, Crouch notes, “the court found no ‘clear legal right to stay those deadlines’ or any ‘irreparable harm’ that may occur.”