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: 312.935.2371
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

July 25, 2017
MBHB partner Emily Miao, Ph.D. is the Featured Presenter at this MATTER Sponsored Workshop
July 25, 2017
July 27, 2017
MBHB Partner Dr. Andrew Williams Is the Featured Presenter
August 29, 2017
September 14, 2017
MBHB Partner Anthoula Pomrening Is the Featured Speaker for this Program
September 19, 2017
MBHB Partners Alison Baldwin and Paula Fritsch, Ph.D. Are Featured Presenters
October 15-17, 2017
MBHB Partner Bradley Hulbert Is a Featured Co-Speaker for this PRG-Sponsored Program
November 3, 2017
MBHB Partner Dr. Paul Tully Is a Featured Speaker

Past Event

June 20, 2017
MBHB Partner Dr. Kevin Noonan Is the Featured Moderator at this BIO 2017 Program
June 19, 2017
MBHB attorney Aaron Gin, Ph.D. is the Featured Presenter at this MATTER Sponsored Workshop
May 24, 2017
MBHB Partner Kevin Noonan, Ph.D. Is the Featured Speaker
May 17-18, 2017
MBHB Partner Bradley Hulbert Is a Featured Presenter
May 16, 2017

Publications

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)
Today, in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, Case No. 16-712, the Supreme Court accepted certiorari on the question of whether the IPR regime set out by Congress in the AIA is constitutional. At issue is whether, once patents are issued, the resulting patent rights are a “public right,” in which case their validity can be resolved by an agency, or a “private property right,” in which case the validity issues must be addressed by Article III courts and arguably subject to the Seventh Amendment’s right to trial by jury.
Spring 2017 (snippets)
Counterfeiting is not a problem limited to items such as luxury handbags or designer sunglasses, but one that extends to many industries—from pharmaceuticals to automotive parts, consumer electronics to cosmetics, computers to personal care products. Thus, the problems imposed on society by counterfeiting are far-reaching, and, according to recent studies, only growing.
Spring 2017 (snippets)
Recently, the Supreme Court delivered a rare victory for many intellectual property (IP) owners in its recent decision: Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. Here, we attempt to unpack what little clear, practical guidance may be garnered from this decision.
Spring 2017 (snippets)
What seems evident from Halo, and the cases that have applied it, is that simply proving willful infringement (even when shown by clear and convincing evidence) is not always going to be sufficient to ensure an award of enhanced damages. To support an award of enhanced damages, patentees will now have to establish that the infringer was more than an aggressive competitor that may have played a little too close to another’s patent rights.
Spring 2017 (snippets)
In part because of RCE and Appeal backlogs, the USPTO has introduced several post-examination programs to speed-up patent prosecution, increase collaboration between examiners and applicants, and reduce the number of RCE and Appeal filings. In this paper, we discuss several procedural options available to applicants after receiving a final rejection, advantages/disadvantages of each option, and conclude with suggestions on how to select the best option depending on the situation.
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);']