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?

Morphosys’ ($MOR) patent trial against Janssen ($JNJ) and Genmab was headed for trial in February.  In advance of that trial, however, the parties traded numerous summary judgment motions.  On January 26, Genmab announced that the District Court granted its motion to invalidate the asserted patents.  What happens next?

Earlier this week, we blogged about the series of pending summary judgment motions in MorphoSys’ ($MOR) lawsuit accusing Janssen’s ($JNJ) Darzalex® of infringing its patents.  The Court heard oral argument on December 3.  The transcript of that hearing is not currently publicly available.  The Court, however, did issue oral rulings at the end of the hearing that hit the docket on December 4.  What do the rulings mean?