One of the driving forces in today’s marketplace is intellectual property. Ideas and designs are now as important to corporate success as financial and operational expertise. At Foley Hoag, we understand the value of protecting our clients’ intellectual property; and we have the experience to provide a global perspective.
-
Eileen Smith Ewing Joins Foley Hoag to Co-Chair Life Sciences Practice
[Read More]
-
Foley Hoag Lawyers in Chambers USA 2010
[Read More]
-
Foley Hoag Launches Trademark & Copyright Blog
[Read More]
-
Federal Circuit Court Affirms ITC Ruling on Behalf of Global Bio-Chem Technology
[Read More]
Client Successes more
-
HyperBranch Medical Technology, Inc.
For our client HyperBranch Medical Technology, Inc., a leader in the field of polymeric medical sealants, we assisted with the intellectual property portfolio strategy in connection with obtaining CE Mark designation for the company’s OcuSeal product. OcuSeal is a liquid ocular bandage used to stabilize ocular wounds following surgical or non-surgical trauma. CE Marking denotes that a product complies with all requirements of European health, safety, and environmental product legislation, and is an important step in bringing products to market overseas. HyperBranch began its research in 2004 with the objective to develop strong enough polymer sealants to ultimately replace sutures that would be easy to use, and would not interfere with natural healing. The Durham, North Carolina medical device company has also, been developing advanced surgical sealants for dura (brain), pleural (lung) and hernia mesh fixation. These products are all at various stages of clinical and pre-clinical development. Read more about HyperBranch Medical Technology here. [Read More]
-
Global Bio-Chem Technology Group Company Limited
Our lawyers, in conjunction with Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg LLP and East Associates, represented Global Bio-Chem Technology Group Company Limited and its affiliates (GBT), the largest lysine producer in China and the largest vertically integrated corn-based biochemical manufacturer in Asia, which prevailed after an evidentiary hearing before the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) in a patent infringement investigation brought by Ajinomoto Heartland LLC and Ajinomoto Co., Inc. (Ajinomoto). In a ruling in July 2008, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held that the claims of Ajinomoto’s two patents were invalid for failure to disclose the best mode of practicing the invention, thus finding no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The ALJ also ruled that both patents were unenforceable because Ajinomoto had committed inequitable conduct. [Read More]