New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1461 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2023) Our Case of the Week focuses on the enablement requirement. It’s the first case to come before the Federal Circuit following the Supreme...more
On April 14, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination in IPR2016-01542 that claims of Amgen’s U.S. Patent No. 8,952,138 are obvious. The ’138 patent claims are directed to...more
As previously reported, Amgen sought leave to appeal a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal (2020 FCA 188) affirming Justice Southcott’s decision that the relevant claims of its filgrastim (NEUPOGEN) patent were invalid...more
UPDATE: On July 9, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada denied Amgen’s leave to appeal (see article here). On November 3, 2020, the Federal Court of Appeal heard and dismissed the appeal of the first trial decision under the...more
UPDATE: On November 3, 2020, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Amgen’s appeal. See our article here. On April 16, 2020, Justice Southcott of the Federal Court issued the first decision under the amended Patented...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al., Appeal Nos. 2018-2414, et al. (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2020) - In this appeal from Markman and summary judgment opinions by the district court in a...more
As previously reported, earlier this year Fresenius filed a petition for inter partes review of claims 9-10, 13-21 and 23-30 of Amgen’s pegfilgrastim patent – U.S. Patent No. 9,643,997 (“997 patent”). The challenged claims of...more
On December 6, 2019, the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in a rituximab-related appeal by Biogen. The appeal stems from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review...more
Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) denied institution of four IPR petitions on biologics-related patents. First, the Board denied institution of IPR2017-01987 and IPR2017-01988, both filed by Sandoz Inc. ...more
Federal Court of Appeal opines on the framework for analyzing obviousness-type double-patenting - On November 4, 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Apotex’s appeal in Apotex Inc v Eli Lilly Canada Inc, 2016 FCA...more
With the U.S. biosimilar pathway created by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) now fully up and running, there are now seven ongoing biosimilar litigations in the U.S. Here are brief updates on recent...more
WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co. (No. 2015-1038, -1044, 7/19/16) (Moore, O'Malley, Chen) - Moore, J. Affirming denial of JMOL that patent was invalid as obvious and lacked an adequate written description, affirming finding of...more
180-Day Notice Period for Biosimilar Approval Is Always Mandatory and Enforceable by Injunction - Amgen Inc., v. Apotex Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016) - A year after analyzing the patent dance and notice...more
The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of two Inter Partes Review challenges brought by Amgen, Inc. against two Humira patents covering stable formulations of anti-human Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha...more