When Dynamic Drinkware was decided in 2015, commentators debated whether differences in the language of the American Invents Act (AIA) version of 35 USC § 102 would shield AIA patents from its restrictions. Now, U.S. Patent...more
The USPTO has released an updated report on Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post Grant Review (PGR) proceedings involving Orange Book or biologic patents, taking into account data through March 31, 2023. Highlights of the...more
The USPTO has commenced the fee-setting process for fee adjustments it expects to implement in January 2025. While many fee changes are modest (~5%), the USPTO proposes significant increases to design patent fees and PTAB...more
In University of Massachusetts v. L’Oréal S.A., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s claim construction that underlay its finding of indefiniteness, which was vacated. The district court’s claim construction had...more
In Eli Lilly and Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH, the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision upholding Teva’s patents directed to specific methods of treatment using an...more
In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas, AG, the Federal Circuit held in the context of an Inter Partes Review proceeding that “[i]f the Board sua sponte identifies a patentability issue for a proposed substitute claim … it must provide...more
The USPTO has taken another major step in the fee-setting process for fee adjustments it expects to implement in January 2021, and published the proposed fees in the Federal Register. The major changes are the same as those...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
On June 10, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the U.S. government cannot challenge the validity of a U.S. patent in any AIA review proceeding (inter partes review, post-grant review, or covered business method review)....more
Provisional applications tempt stakeholders with the possibility of securing a filing date on an expedited basis and limited budget, but the value of that filing date will depend on its ability to serve as a valid priority...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
I previously wrote about the standing issue addressed in Amerigen Pharmaceuticals v. UCB Pharma GMBH. In this article, I look at the lead compound analysis that led the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to uphold the...more
Although “any person” except the owner can challenge a patent in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, only those who satisfy the constitutional requirements for standing can appeal a decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and...more
1/23/2019
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Article III ,
FDA Approval ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Orange Book ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Standing
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 E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that had upheld Synvina’s chemical process patent against an obviousness challenge...more
As we noted in this article on PTAB Trial Insights, Senator Hatch (R-UT) has introduced the Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act, which is intended to restore the brand-generic balance many say has been skewed by Inter Partes Review...more
6/19/2018
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
FDA Approval ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Orange Book ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Post-Grant Review
In Droplets, Inc. v. E*Trade Bank, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that Droplet’s patent was not entitled to the priority date of a provisional application because...more
While Congress is trying to pass a tax reform bill that would cut corporate taxes, USPTO patent fees will increase effective January 16, 2018. The 72% jump in the Inter Partes Review request fee has gotten the most attention,...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 Personal Audio LLC v. Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Federal Circuit ruled that an IPR petitioner does not need to satisfy Article III standing requirements in order to participate in a patent owner’s appeal from a...more
In separate non-precedential decisions issued by three different panels, the PTAB has permitted state university patent owners to invoke the Eleventh Amendment in Inter Partes Review proceedings. Each panel found that IPR...more
I’ve written previously about sequential PTAB challenges to the same patent, but the dispute between Coherus Biosciences Inc. and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. has engendered six Inter Partes Review proceedings against the same...more
The Supreme Court could issue its decision in the Amgen v. Sandoz biosimilar patent dance case any day now. Last week I participated in a panel discussion with industry stakeholders considering how the decision might–or might...more
6/12/2017
/ Amgen ,
Biologics ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Commercial Marketing ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
License Applications ,
Life Sciences ,
Notice Requirements ,
Patent Dance ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Sandoz ,
Sandoz v Amgen ,
SCOTUS
On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Lee, where it has been asked to decide whether the PTAB is statutorily required “to issue a final written decision as to every claim challenged...more
In Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating all claims of U.S. Patent 8,324,283, which is one of four Orange...more
4/25/2017
/ FDA Approval ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Nexus ,
Novartis ,
Obviousness ,
Orange Book ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Substantial Evidence Standard