New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
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
Last week, the PTAB instituted inter partes review of two Chugai patents directed to methods of treating rheumatoid arthritis with a combination of tocilizumab and methotrexate. Fresenius filed petitions for inter partes...more
The Federal Circuit held recently that the "all substantive rights" test, used heretofore to determine the identity of the "patentee" for purposes of satisfying 35 U.S.C. § 281, should be the standard for determining common...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
On March 7, 2019, Kashiv Biosciences filed two IPR petitions (IPR2019-00791 and IPR2019-00797) against Amgen process patents – U.S. Patent Nos. 8,940,878 and 9,643,997. The ‘878 and ‘997 patents are directed to methods to...more
This month we highlight two Federal Circuit obviousness-type double patenting decisions. CASES - Federal Circuit - Section 156 Patent Term Extension and Obviousness-Type Double Patenting - Novartis AG v. Ezra...more
This month we highlight a district court opinion from Judge Dyk, sitting by designation, denying a preliminary injunction in a brand-vs-brand litigation, and a lengthy district court opinion from Judge Bryson, sitting by...more
This month, we highlight significant developments from July 2018, including the FDA’s Biosimilar Action Plan for “reducing gaming of FDA requirements or other attempts to unfairly delay competition” and the much anticipated...more
This month, we highlight significant developments in May 2018, including a stunning reverse payment decision at the FTC, draft guidance from the FDA intended to curb REMS “abuses,” and case law developments at the Federal...more
Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal [Order rehearing en banc] (No. 2016-1794, 8/31/17) (Prost, Newman, Lourie, Dyk, Moore, O'Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, Hughes, Stoll) - Per Curiam. Sua sponte vacating panel opinion, ordering...more
District Court Abused Discretion in Not Finding Case Exceptional - In Rothschild Connected Devices v. Guardian Protection Services, Appeal No. 2016-2521, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion...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