As a non-precedential decision on claim construction, Horizon Pharma, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc., may not be relevant to any other case, but it caught my attention as an example of the perils of claim drafting....more
In a decision that is not very surprising but nonetheless worth taking note of, the Federal Circuit found that a reasonable jury could have found claims reciting methods using a recombinant polypeptide to be anticipated by...more
The claim construction determinations in Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. V. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. may leave stakeholders in the pharmaceutical space scratching their heads, and highlights that it’s rarely possible to...more
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 an opinion issued November 19, 2018, Judge Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey found two Orange Book-listed patents for VIMOVO® invalid for indefiniteness in the way certain pharmacokinetic...more
In Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co. V. Emcure Pharm. Ltd., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that construed a chemical structure as reading on the lurasidone enantiomer that is the active ingredient of...more
Although non-precedential, the Federal Circuit decision in Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc. v. Apotex Inc. is worth a read to see how the court “tiptoes” the “fine line between reading a claim in light of the specification, and...more
It’s that time of year when we make resolutions to improve our health, our relationships, our careers, or other areas of our lives. I’m not starting a new diet today (although if I were, the invention described in this patent...more
1/2/2018
/ Claim Construction ,
Foreign Patent Applications ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
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In a non-precedential decision issued in Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of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 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 Multilayer Stretch Cling Film v. Berry Plastics, the Federal Circuit provided a detailed discussion of the construction of claims that use Markush group language. The decision emphasizes the closed nature of the...more
As we wait for the Supreme Court decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, where the Court has been asked to decide whether the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) should apply the “broadest reasonable...more
In Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., the Federal Circuit outlined the permitted extent of judicial review of Covered Business Method (CBM) patent review proceedings conducted by the USPTO Patent Trial and...more
7/23/2015
/ America Invents Act ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Judicial Review ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
USPTO
A divided Federal Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc that would have required the court to revisit its decision in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC (Fed Cir 2015), that upheld the USPTO’s use of the...more
7/23/2015
/ America Invents Act ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
En Banc Review ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pending Legislation ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Popular ,
Post-Grant Review ,
USPTO
The Federal Circuit decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., addressed several important issues relating to post-grant patent trials conducted by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), including the PTAB’s...more
6/24/2015
/ Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Microsoft ,
Motion to Amend ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Remand ,
USPTO
In ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp., the Federal Circuit found that the addition of a dependent claim to a reissue application improperly broadened the scope of the original independent claims beyond the two-year period...more
Pacing Technologies, LLC v. Garmin International, Inc. is one of those Federal Circuit decisions that may send patent practitioners running to their files to double-check the phrasing used in their patent applications. Not...more
On January 26, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded Shire Development LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to the Federal Circuit “for further consideration in light of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,...more
1/30/2015
/ Certiorari ,
Claim Construction ,
Clear Error Standard ,
De Novo Standard of Review ,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Shire Development v Watson ,
Teva v Sandoz ,
Vacated
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., finding that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure call for some deference in the claim construction standard of...more
In a divided opinion issued in Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court on one of two challenged claim construction issues and vacated the district court’s finding of...more
Are claims that recite a “solvate” of a chemical compound invalid for lack of written description if the patent does not describe any specific solvates? In GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc., the Federal Circuit...more
In a six-four en banc decision in Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North Am. Corp., a divided Federal Circuit confirmed its practice of de novo claim construction review. The main question arising from the...more
In Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that Zydus’s proposed generic product infringed Takeda’s Prevacid® SoluTab™ patent, but...more
In the non-precedential decision in In re Eaton, the Federal Circuit reversed the USPTO Board decision affirming rejections of anticipation and obviousness. The court found that the Board decision strayed from its own claim...more