Skip to main content
Kaitlin Abrams Farrell on Muck Rack

Kaitlin Abrams Farrell

As seen in: JD Supra
Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work. Claim your profile

Get in touch with Kaitlin Abrams

Contact Kaitlin Abrams, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.

Learn more about Muck Rack

Actions

Share this page

Is this you?

As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile

Articles

Purdue v. Collegium: Upholding the Board’s Authority to Issue a Final Written Decision Even After the Statutory Deadline Has Passed | JD Supra

|
By Chinmay Bagwe, Kaitlin Abrams Farrell
| JD Supra
December 6, 2023 To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: On November 21, 2023, the Federal Circuit in Purdue Pharma L.P et al. v. Collegium Pharm., Inc.
Open in Who Shared Issue with article?

Takeaways From United Therapeutics Corporation v. Liquidia Technologies Incorporated | JD Supra

|
By Kaitlin Abrams Farrell, Emily Grigas
| JD Supra
Application of Section 112 for Method-of-Treatment Claims The Federal Circuit rejected Liquidia Technologies’s argument that the district court clearly erred in finding the asserted claims of the ’793 patent are adequately enabled, finding instead that “[t]he specification of the ’793 patent sufficiently enables the scope of the claims.”4 The Court also found that the claims are supported by adequate written description.
Open in Who Shared Issue with article?

In re Couvaras: Limitations of Unexpected Results for Non-Obviousness of Claimed Mechanisms of Action | JD Supra

|
By Kaitlin Abrams Farrell
| JD Supra
On appeal, Couvaras raised three issues: (1) the Board erred in affirming that a skilled artisan would have had a motivation to combine the art asserted by the Examiner; (2) the claimed mechanism of action was unexpected, and that the Board erred in discounting its patentable weight by deeming it simply inherent in the claimed method; (3) the Board erred in its consideration of Couvaras’s objective indicia of nonobviousness, particularly with respect to unexpected results.10 Motivation to...
Open in Who Shared Issue with article?
See all 8 articles