EpiPen RICO Ruling Opens Door for Private AKS Enforcement
The Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision finding the challenged claims of Sanofi-Aventis’ ’614 patent unpatentable as obvious....more
In Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., Case No. 2021-1981, the Federal Circuit reversed an obviousness determination by the PTAB. At issue was Sanofi’s reissued U.S. Patent No. RE47,614 (the ’614 patent),...more
Ranges for Interdependent and Interactive Components Can Be Tricky to Derive - In Modernatx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, Appeal No. 20-2329, the Federal Circuit held that a presumption of obviousness based on...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA v. CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS, INC. [OPINION] (2021-1360, 12/07/2021) (MOORE, NEWMAN, and REYNA) - Moore, C.J. The Court affirmed the PTAB’s IPR decision...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
On March 26, 2021, the PTAB issued its Final Written Decision in Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH, IPR2019-01657, which involved Sanofi’s Patent RE47,614 (“’614 patent”) relating to its LANTUS...more
BECAUSE THE PRIOR ART TAUGHT OVERLAPPING PH RANGES AND STRUCTURALLY SIMILAR COMPOUNDS AS THOSE CLAIMED IN THE PATENT-IN-SUIT, THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT REVERSED SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS. Case Name: Valeant Pharms...more
The written description requirement has had a twenty-five year renaissance, particularly in the chemical and biotechnology arts as a way of restricting claim scope to what an inventor has actually invented (see Regents of the...more
PTAB May Invalidate Claims on Reconsideration Based on Grounds Raised in the Institution Decision that Were Not Originally Instituted - In AC Technologies S.A., V. Amazon.Com, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Appeal No....more
One of the criticisms of the post-grant review proceedings instituted under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (post-grant review, inter partes review, and covered business method review) was the (relative) unavailability of...more
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that the claims of U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE38,551 challenged in inter partes review were not unpatentable for...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) final written decisions finding the claims of Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd.’s (“Yeda”) U.S. Patent Nos. 8,232,250, 8,399,413, and...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Judges Reyna, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Non-prior art evidence may...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently issued a Final Written Decision in an inter partes review styled Mylan Pharm. v. AstraZeneca AB affirming the patentability of all challenged...more
Affirming judgment of noninfringement of one patent and reversing judgment of infringement of another patent. All asserted claims required a particular process step, construed as defined by one example in the specification,...more
About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: Each month we will report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. ConforMIS, Inc. PTAB Petition: IPR2017-00778; filed January 26, 2017....more
About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: Each month we will report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. McKesson Corp. v. My Health, Inc. - PTAB Petition: IPR2017-00312; filed November 29, 2016. ...more
Federal Court of Appeal rules on non-infringing alternatives and apportionment as defences to an accounting of profits from patent infringement - On February 2, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal released a...more
It has been four years since the first inter partes review proceedings were filed in the United States. The first IPR petition, filed on September 16, 2012 (the first day IPRs became available), made it all the way to the...more
About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: Each week we will report on recent developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited v. UCB Pharma GmbH - PTAB Petition: IPR2016-01665;...more
About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: Each week we will report on recent developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Illumina, Inc. v. Scripps Research Institute - PTAB Petition: IPR2016-01619; filed...more
In Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision holding four OxyContin patents invalid as obvious. In so doing, the court rejected Purdue’s arguments that its discovery of...more
A claim term that can have different meanings or values depending on the method used to measure it renders the claim indefinite because it is impossible for a potential infringer to discern the boundaries of the claim. This...more