In a bulletin issued July 24, 2022, focused on Director Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions in AIA trials, the USPTO also announced the creation of “a new Appeals Review Panel (ARP), which may be convened...more
In Sawstop Holding LLC v. Vidal, the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO’s interpretation of the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) statute that limits the availability of PTA for time spent appealing an Examiner’s rejection. The...more
As much of the United States is taking steps towards “getting back to normal,” the USPTO continues to implement programs to encourage investment and innovation in technologies addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Recently, the...more
The USPTO has initiated a new pilot program for expediting ex parte appeals from examiner rejections. Under the Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program, applicants can pay $400 for expedited review in which case the USPTO will...more
In Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit agreed with the USPTO’s Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) calculation that excluded prosecution that occurred after an interference was decided...more
In contrast to its decision in Nuvo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc., which seemed to impose a higher standard for satisfying the written description requirement, the Federal Circuit decision in...more
In Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit distinguished method of treatment claims that involve personalized dosing from the claims invalidated in Mayo v. Prometheus, and found them...more
4/4/2019
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Alice Corporation ,
Appeals ,
Endo Pharmaceuticals ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Section 101 ,
Teva Pharmaceuticals ,
USPTO
In Natural Alternatives Internat'l v. Creative Compounds, LLC, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court decision that held the asserted claims invalid under 35 USC § 101 at the pleadings stage. I previously wrote about...more
In Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co., the Federal Circuit issued another decision analyzing the contours of a petitioner’s Article III standing to appeal PTAB decisions upholding a patent. In contrast...more
2/26/2019
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Appeals ,
Article III ,
Bristol-Myers Squibb ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Momenta ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Standing
In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Supreme Court interpreted the “on sale bar” of the America Invents Act (AIA) version of 35 U.S.C. § 102 as unchanged from the pre-AIA version. In so doing, the...more
1/30/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Assignment of Inventions ,
Confidentiality Agreements ,
Helsinn Healthcare SA v Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc ,
Inventions ,
On-Sale Bar ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Public Use ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 102 ,
Third-Party Relationships
The Federal Circuit decision in In re Durance is a rare precedential decision in an ex parte appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision rejecting a pending patent application. The Court took the USPTO to task...more
6/27/2018
/ Appeals ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Inventions ,
Means-Plus-Function ,
Oral Argument ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Examinations ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
USPTO
In a non-precedential decision issued in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V., v. Warner Chilcott Co. LLC, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s obviousness ruling as being improperly grounded in hindsight. This decision...more
The October 5, 2017 Federal Circuit decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi is getting a lot of attention for its commercial impact, because the court vacated the permanent injunction that prevented Sanofi and Regeneron from...more
In Ex Parte Timothy, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of personalized medicine treatment claims. This decision highlights the PTAB’s willingness to invalidate claims that it...more
10/7/2017
/ Appeals ,
Innovation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Personalized Medicine ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Product of Nature Doctrine ,
Section 101 ,
USPTO
In recent decisions, the Federal Circuit has found error in the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s approach to obviousness rejections, including its reliance on the doctrine of routine optimization without evidence of an...more
In Southwire Co. v. Cerro Wire LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO decision rendered in an inter partes reexamination proceeding that found Southwire’s patent invalid as obvious. Although the court found that the USPTO...more
9/16/2017
/ Administrative Appeals ,
Appeals ,
CAFC ,
Harmless Error ,
Inherency ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
In a split decision with Judge Lourie dissenting, the Federal Circuit vacated an obviousness rejection that had been affirmed in an ex parte appeal to the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The decision was rendered in In...more
9/11/2017
/ Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Burden-Shifting ,
CAFC ,
Ex Parte ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Examinations ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
In Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that Amgen could not obtain discovery related to activities that might infringe a patent that it had not asserted in its biosimilar patent litigation against Hospira....more
8/31/2017
/ Amgen ,
Appeals ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Collateral Order Doctrine ,
FDA Approval ,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ,
FRCP 11 ,
Hospira ,
Judicial Review ,
Motion to Compel ,
Patent Dance ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Writ of Mandamus
In a 38 page decision with a 19 page dissent by Judge Newman, the Federal Circuit determined that Regeneron’s transgenic mouse patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The decision was rendered in Regeneron...more
8/4/2017
/ Adverse Inference Instructions ,
Appeals ,
But For Causation ,
Discovery ,
Due Process ,
Fourteenth Amendment ,
Inequitable Conduct ,
Intent ,
Materiality ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Prosecution ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Sanctions ,
USPTO
In Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (which you can read more about here), the Supreme Court held that 42 USC § 262(l)(9)(C) sets forth the exclusive federal remedy for failing to provide a copy of the biosimilar application to the...more
6/29/2017
/ Amgen ,
Appeals ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Commercial Marketing ,
Disclosure Requirements ,
Exclusive Remedy ,
Patent Dance ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Preemption ,
Remand ,
Sandoz ,
Sandoz v Amgen ,
SCOTUS ,
State Law Claims ,
Supremacy Clause ,
Unfair Competition
In Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., the Federal Circuit reviewed a preliminary injunction based in part on a finding of likelihood of success in establishing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents....more
In a non-precedential decision issued in Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Breckenridge, and...more
5/30/2017
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Appeals ,
CAFC ,
Claim Construction ,
Induced Infringement ,
Noninfringement ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Product Labels ,
Reversal ,
Summary Judgment
In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit found that a publicly-announced “Supply and Purchase” agreement triggered the on-sale bar under pre-AIA 35 USC § 102(b) and under AIA 35 USC §...more
In The Medicines Co. v. Mylan, Inc., the Federal Circuit construed composition claims of two Angiomax patents as requiring the recited “batches” to be made by a specific “efficient mixing” process illustrated in one of the...more
In Novartis v. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions invalidating certain claims of two Orange Book-listed Exelon patents. This decision has...more