Pharmaceuticals and Diagnostics

Click here to view our Pharmaceuticals and Diagnostics professionals

Drawing on our strengths in biomedical and chemical matters, we have prosecuted, licensed, and litigated a wide variety of patents in the pharmaceutical and diagnostics fields, including such technologies as:

  • medical diagnostics
  • target discovery
  • high-throughput screening
  • combinatorial chemistry
  • drug-delivery systems
  • therapeutic small molecules
  • drug and antibody assay devices, methods, and reagents.

 

Pharmaceutical patents, and other biotechnology patents generally, are part of our core biotechnology work.

P: 312.913.2104
F: 312.913.0002
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
P: 312.913.2130
F: 312.913.0002
Senior Patent Agent
P: 312.913.2146
F: 312.913.0002
Technical Advisor
P: 312.913.2134
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3330
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: 312.913.2121
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3332
F: 312.913.0002
P: 360.379.6514
F: 312.913.2557
P: 312.913.2117
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2143
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: 312.913.2116
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2106
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2371
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2123
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2372
F: 312.913.0002
Associate
P: 312.913.2125
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3311
F: 312.913.0002
Senior Patent Agent
P: 312.913.3393
F: 312.913.0002
Master Patent Agent
P: 312.913.3346
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2129
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: 312.913.3302
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2370
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2145
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3349
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2118
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2366
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2133
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3356
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2136
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3379
F: 312.913.0001
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
Associate
P: 312.913.2142
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2132
F: 312.913.0002

Upcoming Events

September 14-15, 2016
PLI-Sponsored 2-Day Seminar Features 5 MBHB Partners as Presenters
September 20, 2016
MBHB Partners Alison Baldwin and Paula Fritsch, Ph.D. Are the Featured Presenters
October 19-21, 2016
MBHB Partner Bradley Hulbert Is a Featured Co-Speaker for this PRG-Sponsored Program

Past Event

August 25, 2016
July 27, 2016
MBHB Partner James McCarthy is the Featured Presenter
July 26, 2016
MBHB Partner Dr. Emily Miao Is the Featured Presenter at this MATTER Sponsored Workshop
June 15, 2016
June 11, 2016
MBHB Partner Kirsten Thomson Is a Featured Presenter for this Program

Publications

June 27, 2016 (snippets Alert)
By now, everyone has likely heard about the United Kingdom’s vote last week to leave the European Union. Few things are certain at this time, as governments around the world are still making plans to deal with Brexit. Once the UK formally requests withdrawal (which may still be months away), its transition out of the EU will be a lengthy process. As of now, no laws have changed as a result of the UK vote last week. We therefore do not recommend taking any drastic action at this time. We do, however, recommend that any businesses with a presence in the EU begin planning for the changes that will ultimately affect trademark and design rights in Europe.
June 20, 2016 (snippets Alert)
MBHB snippets Alert - June 20, 2016

In its first pronouncement regarding the post-grant reviewing proceedings established by the America Invents Act (“AIA”), the Supreme Court ruled that the Patent and Trademark Office’s positions on two of the law’s provisions regarding inter partes review (“IPR”) were correct. First, the Court held unanimously that the PTO properly applied the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard for claim construction for IPRs. Second, six members of the Court also agreed that the statute mandated that the decision to institute an IPR was not subject to judicial review.
June 14, 2016 (snippets Alert)
MBHB snippets Alert - June 14, 2016

On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, that an award of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 should be within the sound discretion of a district court, albeit wherein this discretion is limited to “egregious cases of misconduct beyond typical infringement.” The decision in the combined Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. cases reverses the Federal Circuit test established in In re Seagate Tech., LLC, which had required a patentee to satisfy a two-part test (having subjective and objective components) to establish willful infringement.
Spring 2016 (snippets)
On March 23, 2016, new rules came into effect substantially amending the Community trademark system in the European Union (the “amended Regulations”).  In this article, we discuss a number of points potentially relevant to U.S. brand owners, including (1) changes in terminology, (2) changes in fees, and, perhaps most important, (3) potential changes to the scope of protection of existing trademark registrations in the European Union.
Spring 2016 (snippets)
The “on-sale” bar to patentability refers to a sale or offer for sale of an invention that can invalidate the patent for that invention. The America-Invents-Act (AIA), which altered the language in the statutes that apply to the on-sale bar, has made it difficult to determine what actions might constitute a “sale” or an “offer for sale” under current law. Nevertheless, a clear understanding of the on-sale bar is necessary to enable entities of all sizes—from single inventors to large corporations—to effectively monitor activities surrounding their inventions, and to enable attorneys to provide such entities with accurate and useful advice.
Spring 2016 (snippets)
In March 2015, the FDA approved the first biosimilar application, which was for a follow-on biologic drug of Amgen’s reference product NEUPOGEN® (filgrastim). Yet, before the applicant, Sandoz, could launch its biosimilar under the brand name ZARXIO®, it had to wait for the Federal Circuit to interpret the controlling statute, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”). This year, a different applicant with an approved biosimilar drug is in a very similar 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=298&pdf=yes
a[href='javascript:packetBuilderSingleClick(document.title);']