Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s invalidation of a counterpart U.S. patent in the same family for lack of enablement (21-757 Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (05/18/23) (supremecourt.gov)), the UPC has now rendered a decision on its...more
Case Name: Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. v. Padagis Israel Pharms. Ltd., No. CV 20-5426 (SRC), 2022 WL 17352334 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2022) (Chesler, J.) Drug Products and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Duobrii® (halobetasol...more
Case Name: Arius Two, Inc. v. Alvogen PB Rsch. & Dev. LLC, No. 2022-1394, 2022 WL 17828352 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 21, 2022) (Circuit Judges Chen, Clevenger, and Cunningham presiding; Opinion by Chen, J.) (Appeal from D. Del.,...more
Case Name: Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. No. 20-5212 (KM)(ESK) (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2022) (McNulty, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: QuilliChew ER® (methylphenidate); U.S. Patents Nos. 9,545,399 (“the...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied a petition to institute inter partes review, finding there was no reasonable likelihood that petitioners would prevail on their obviousness challenges. In rendering its decision, the...more
Almost four years ago, in a relatively rare occurrence based on there being an insufficient factual record to permit proper appellate review, the Federal Circuit vacated a District Court decision rendering invalid the claims...more
The Federal Circuit recently granted a panel rehearing and vacated a panel decision between these parties decided earlier this year (see Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Accord Healthcare), and rendered a decision that...more
Claim Limitation Not Disclosed by Any Reference but Disclosed by “Proposed Combination” of References Is Obvious - In Hoyt Augustus Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corporation, Appeal No. 21-1561, the Federal Circuit held that a...more
In Quanergy Systems, Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc.1, a Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB or Board) decisions that claims of a Velodyne patent were...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) patentability decisions after determining that the Board did not err in construing multiple terms within the challenged patents....more
The Federal Circuit is holding its first argument session of 2022 this week (with a return to telephonic arguments in light of the Omicron variant). In this post, we take a look back at how the Court closed out 2021 and...more
The Federal Circuit published a precedential decision on September 1, 2021 regarding the unenforceability of a pharmaceutical patent due to inequitable conduct. In Belcher Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Hospira, Inc., the Court...more
In academic settings, objective indicia of non-obviousness are sometimes presented as a common way of rebutting contentions that a claimed invention is obvious. These indicia, set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. and...more
We hope our readers had a restful Memorial Day Weekend. Even DC’s cicadas took the weekend off. Before the long weekend, the Federal Circuit left us with 3 precedential opinions, including one addressing what qualifies as...more
The legal concept of obviousness is tricky. A claimed invention is found obvious if the prior art teaches or suggests all claim limitations and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the...more
In Trustees of Columbia University v. Illumina, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) decision to invalidate five patents owned by Columbia,...more
Building on Tip #4, one effective way to avoid institution and not address facts is to point out shortcomings in the petition's application of KSR when asserting motivation to combine for an obviousness analysis. The Patent...more
Goodwin’s 337 Quarterly Insider remains the premiere publicly available source for keeping up to date on all meaningful decisions coming out of the Commission. Please find below Goodwin’s insights on the months of April, May,...more
Non-Infringement Need Not Be “Actually Litigated” To Shield Accused Products From Infringement Liability In Subsequent Actions - In In Re Personal Web Technologies LLC, Appeal No. 19-1918, the Federal Circuit ruled that the...more
The Federal Circuit recently reaffirmed a case where common sense was used to supply a missing element in a § 103 obviousness analysis. On June 26, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D...more
SHOES BY FIREBUG LLC v. STRIDE RITE CHILDREN'S GROUP - Before Lourie, Moore, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: In similar claims of two related patents, one preamble was limiting...more
The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can institute inter partes review (IPR) on a ground not advanced by the petitioner, as well as whether the general knowledge of a person...more
Key Points - Federal Circuit issued precedential opinion in Hospira Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC that affirmed obviousness of a liquid drug patent claim, encouraging future patent challengers to raise the issue of...more
The Appointments Clause: Ensuring That PTAB Decisions Are Subject to Constitutional Checks and Balances In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 18-2251, the Federal Circuit ruled that, under the then-existing...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories, FL, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1221 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2019) - This week’s Case of the Week focuses on issues relating to written...more