)
)
)
Innovator-Innovator Litigation: Strategy in the Age of Rival Therapies and Next-Generation Technologies
Disputes among innovators have become a defining feature of the life science patent litigation landscape in recent years, as competition intensifies across blockbuster platform technologies, biologics, cell and gene therapies, antibody technologies and next-generation oncology products. This session examines how crowded innovation spaces are driving litigation between branded therapies, reflecting on the growing body of innovator-innovator case law and drawing comparisons between major recent decisions.
- Review recent high-profile innovator-vs-innovator disputes, including CureVac v BioNTech, Moderna v Pfizer/BioNTech, Amgen v Sanofi/Regeneron, Teva v Eli Lilly and CRISPR platform litigation.
- Discuss how innovator-vs-innovator litigation has impacted patentability standards and prosecution strategies for biologics and next-generation platform technologies – is broad functional claiming within crowded innovation spaces becoming harder to sustain post-Amgen v Sanofi/Regeneron?
- Compare Teva v Eli Lilly (2026) with Amgen v Sanofi/Regeneron (2023 onwards) – are recent U.S. innovator disputes signalling a reversal in trends surrounding enablement, sufficiency and written description, alongside a shift away from product claims toward method of treatment claims?
- Understand how the UPC, European national courts and other international jurisdictions are approaching infringement thresholds, injunctions, damages and proportionality in innovator-vs-innovator disputes.
- Explore the interplay between platform technology exclusivity strategy and disputes among innovators.
