I’ve previously written about Arbutus’ patent disputes with Moderna and Pfizer.  In Arbutus’ case against Pfizer, the court recently conducting a claim construction hearing.  Before that hearing, Pfizer argued that many of Arbutus’ patents are “indefinite.”  The court held it was premature for Pfizer to make this argument, but Pfizer nonetheless established that when the case reaches summary judgment, it will rely upon the doctrine of indefiniteness to prevail against Arbutus.  What is indefiniteness in patent law?  Are Arbutus’ patents indefinite?  How viable is Pfizer’s “indefiniteness” defense?

In 2016, MorphoSys ($MOR) sued Janssen ($JNJ) and Genmab for patent infringement.  MorphoSys claims that Janssen’s anti-CD38 antibody, Darzalex®, infringes three of its patents.  The case is scheduled to go to trial in February 2019.  The stakes are big because the patents purport to cover the actual protein used in Darzalex®, which could mean material royalty rates on sales of Janssen’s drug.  What are the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case?

On March 23, Celgene and Dr. Reddy’s informed the Court that they jointly have resolved the single pending claim construction dispute—namely, the construction of the word “crystalline” within the two asserted polymorph patents.  What does this mean for the case?