jump to navigation

MBBP’s Life Sciences Vector, Summer 2016 07/14/2016

Posted by Morse Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Client News, Life Sciences, MBBP news, New Resources.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

ext2016 LIFE SCIENCES PANEL SERIES

At the second of our Life Sciences panel Series: “Laying the Foundation for Growth: Entity & Equity”, experts discussed whether a corporation or a limited liability company is the “Right Stuff ” for building an emerging company, and how to structure and optimize the equity compensation of the team. MBBP’s John Hession moderated the panel, which included Marc Cote of Accellient and Jeff Solomon of Katz Nannis + Solomon. Stay tuned for details on Panel 3 in the fall.

Click here to learn more.

MBBP ADDS TWO ATTORNEYS

Weatherly Ralph Emans, Corporate Senior Attorney – As a member of the firm’s PIFA team in the corporate group, Weatherly focuses her practice primarily on private investment funds, including private equity funds, venture funds, hedge funds and funds of funds. Weatherly’s practice also includes venture capital transactions and providing general corporate advice to early stage companies.

Amanda R. Phillips, Litigation Associate – As a member of the firm’s litigation practice, Amanda focuses her practice on commercial civil disputes and securities litigation, and has broad experience working with clients under investigation by federal and state government agencies.

WAIT A MINUTE MR. POSTMAN…

Sooner or later many companies with a successful product or service will receive an overture from a patent holder. Some are almost friendly, proposing a potential mutually beneficial business relationship involving the patent. Others are decidedly less so, leveling claims of patent infringement and seeking immediate termination of the activity or product sales and/or significant financial compensation. This entire range of written communications is commonly referred to as “demand letters.” So – what’s the next step if your company receives a demand letter?

Read more on Page 2.

SUPREME COURT DENIES SEQUENOM’ PETITION TO CLARIFY SCOPE OF MAYO IN SEQUENOM V. ARIOSA

On June 27, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Sequenom, Inc. requesting the Supreme Court to clarify the scope of its Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) decision, as applied to Sequenom’s claimed inventions. The Mayo decision, which held that a method correlating a drug dosage regimen and levels of the drug in the blood was an unpatentable law of nature, has had the profound effect of narrowing the scope of patent-eligible subject matter in the United States and has cast doubt on the validity and enforceability of previously issued United States patents.

Read more on Page 3.

CLIENT SPOTLIGHT: iSpecimen 

iSpecimen is a trusted, one-stop source of customized human biospecimen collections. Compliantly sourced from our diverse
partner network of hospitals, labs, biobanks, blood centers, and other healthcare organizations, our solid tissues, biofluids, and cells are delivered directly into the hands of biomedical researchers using our unique, turnkey technology. Scientists gain access to a ready supply of the high-quality, richly-annotated specimens they need from the patients they want. Supply partners gain an opportunity to further contribute to biomedical discovery as well as their bottom line.

Read more on Page 4.

Comments»

No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: