Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals

Click here to view our Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals professionals

MBHB provides representation in our biotechnology and pharmaceuticals practice for patent procurement, litigation, due diligence, licensing, technology transfer, patent validity and infringement opinions, oppositions and post-grant proceedings, interference practice, and other areas of client counseling concerning a widely diverse array of biopharma subject matter.  Spearheaded by attorneys, patent agents, and technical advisors with advanced degrees in such areas as molecular biology, genetics, immunology, neurobiology, cellular biology, biophysics, molecular medicine, biomedical science, cancer biology, human nutrition, plant sciences, biochemistry, bio-organic chemistry, synthetic organic chemistry, and chemical engineering, our biotechnology and pharmaceuticals practice has the combination of technical expertise and legal experience that enables us to represent our clients in the most sophisticated arenas.

We work extensively with our clients on cutting-edge subject matter, such as antibiotics, monoclonal and engineered antibodies, oligonucleotides and recombinant genes, miRNA and siRNA, ribozymes, proteins and peptides, target discovery, stem cells, vaccines, combinatorial chemistry, therapeutic small molecules, pharmaceutical products, screening assays, diagnostic methods and assays, methods of treatment and use, and nanotechnology.

Our substantial experience extends worldwide and includes strategic development and protection of intellectual property for Fortune 500 multinational corporations, mid-sized and start-up biopharma companies, universities, and small and micro entities. We also have significant experience working with counsel in numerous countries and regions to help our clients secure global protection of their intellectual property.

Several of our team members contribute to the patent law blog, Patent Docs (www.patentdocs.org), recognized as one of the foremost patent law blogs.

P: 312.913.3323
F: 312.913.0001
P: 312.935.2369
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2140
F: 312.913.0002
Senior Patent Agent
P: 312.913.3357
F: 312.913.0002
Senior Patent Agent
P: 312.913.2146
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2134
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3345
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3317
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3352
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2109
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3332
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3369
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3315
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3333
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2135
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3366
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2106
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3389
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2371
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3393
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3346
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2101
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3344
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2126
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2370
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2145
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3335
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3349
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2133
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2136
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3348
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2379
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3368
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3301
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2132
F: 312.913.0002

Upcoming Events

September 22, 2017
MBHB Partner Paul Berghoff Is the Featured Speaker for this Program 
October 15-17, 2017
MBHB Partner Bradley Hulbert Is a Featured Co-Speaker for this PRG-Sponsored Program
October 17, 2017
MBHB Attorneys Grant Drutchas and Aaron Gin, Ph.D. Are Featured Presenters
October 27, 2017
MBHB Partners Anthoula Pomrening and Marcus Thymian Are the Featured Speakers for this Program
November 3, 2017
MBHB Partner Dr. Paul Tully Is a Featured Speaker

Past Event

September 19, 2017
MBHB Partners Alison Baldwin and Paula Fritsch, Ph.D. Are Featured Presenters
September 12-13, 2017
PLI-Sponsored 2-Day Seminar Features 5 MBHB Partners as Presenters
August 30, 2017
MBHB partner Emily Miao, Ph.D. is the Featured Presenter at this MATTER Sponsored Workshop
August 29, 2017
August 25, 2017
MBHB partner Nicole Keenan Is the Featured Presenter at this Blazin' Babes Sponsored Webinar

Publications

Summer 2017 (snippets)
With cannabis policy reform and legalization continuing to gain momentum nationwide and internationally, the “Green Rush” is well underway. For companies and entrepreneurs entering this industry, comprehensive intellectual property (“IP”) protection is vital for their developing cannabis brands and inventions.
Summer 2017 (snippets)
In Water Splash v. Menon, the Supreme Court presents guidance for multinational plaintiffs and defendants charting the rarely tested waters of international service. Specifically, in determining that service by direct mailing is not expressly prohibited under the Hague Service Convention, the Court opened the flood gates for parties to attempt Convention-compliant service by direct mailing.
Summer 2017 (snippets)
On May 22, 2017, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, the Supreme Court reversed decades of expansive patent venue interpretation by the Federal Circuit. The ruling in TC Heartland immediately overturns long-standing “forum-shopping” practices and introduces a longer-term issue of defining “a regular and established place of business.”
Summer 2017 (snippets)
On May 11, 2017, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) – the law that created a Federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation – celebrated its first birthday. From the first year of enforcement, it appears that the DTSA got the balance right with some provisions, may need to be tweaked with others, and has yet to render clear results in some.
June 19, 2017 (snippets Alert)

This morning, in Matal v. Tam, previously Lee v. Tam, the Supreme Court handed down its most impactful interpretation of the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act to date by holding that at its intersection with the First Amendment, the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.  

June 12, 2017 (snippets Alert)
The Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., marking the first time the Court has interpreted the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) for the approval of biosimilar drugs. On the first question considered, the Court held that a biologic reference product sponsor (“RPS”) cannot seek enforcement of 42 U.S.C. §262(l)(2)(A) by injunction under federal law. The Court’s analysis of the second question, regarding the 180-day notice provisions of the statute, was more straightforward. The Court held that the Federal Circuit had misinterpreted the statutory language by imposing a requirement for FDA approval before proper notice could be given.
Close
Generate a PDF of your page(s)
Clear
Close
Remove
Page has been queued
An error has occurred
Add
Added to queue
View
Confirm Delete All Message
No Items in Packet Message
To add a page, select Add. To view the package, select View.
false
http://www.mbhb.com/services/xpqServiceDetail.aspx?xpST=ServiceDetail&service=296&pdf=yes
a[href='javascript:packetBuilderSingleClick(document.title);']