Voting after Friday’s conference, the Supreme Court followed the Solicitor General’s advice and denied certiorari in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. (No. 18-817), but also denied cert. in Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC (No. 19-430), and HP Inc. v. Berkheimer (No. 18-415).
Perhaps the Court has decided its work with 35 USC § 101 is done, and the rest is up to Congress.
Disclaimer
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.
Author(s)
Related Insights
14 November 2024
Blogs
Épistémê Entrepreneur With Kamyar Maserrat
Kamyar Maserrat joins the Épistémê Entrepreneur podcast to explore quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and how they intersect with the world of intellectual property.
14 November 2024
Energy Current
FERC Order Rejecting Co-Location of Nuclear Facility and Data Center Increases Uncertainty and Leaves Data Center Stakeholders Contemplating Alternative Paths
A recent decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission calls into question data centers’ access to sufficient electricity supplies to support their substantial and increasing electric demands.
14 November 2024
Health Care Law Today
Health & Hype Podcast: A Deeper Dive into DEA Telemedicine Controlled Substances
In the wake of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) notice of a forthcoming proposed rule with a third extension of flexibilities related to telemedicine prescribing of controlled substances, some industry stakeholders anticipate the rule will extend the current DEA telemedicine prescribing flexibilities for at least another year to avoid the Telehealth Cliff.