Tag Archives: LegallyBrief

by

Brief Video, Publication Highlight Key Issues in AEP v. Connecticut Supreme Court Case

Tomorrow morning, the U.S. Supreme Court has but one case on its oral argument schedule, a distinction deserved for this case of huge legal and broader public interest significance – American Electric Power v. Connecticut.  Washington Legal Foundation, along with 25 others (most notably the United States government), supports AEP as amicus curiae (our brief).

We recommend to you two other resources regarding the case.  First, WLF produced this Legal Backgrounder by Baker & Hostetler attorneys Mark DeLaquil and David Rivkin.  Second, we placed the following video on our Legally Brief website, which features Troutman Sanders partner Peter Glaser:

by

Brief video commentary on “written description” patent requirement case

In late March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its en banc ruling in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. The issue in question – whether the patent statute requires patent applications to include a “written description” and what the scope of that requirement is – may seem esoteric even in the complex world of patent law.  But the Federal Circuit’s en banc review attracted a slew of amicus brief, including one from Washington Legal Foundation.

WLF asked Howard W. Levine, head of the biotechnology/pharmaecutical group at the law firm Finnegan, Henderson,  Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP and a counsel to victorious Eli Lilly in Ariad, to explain the decision and its significance in 600 words or less.  He effectively conveyed these very concise thoughts in a short video now available as part of WLF’s LegallyBrief video series (www.legallybrief.com).  To view Mr. Levine’s video click here.   The transcript of his commentary is below. Continue reading →