Everything Compliance-Episode 63, the Novartis edition
Episode 150 -- Novartis Settles False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Cases for $729 Million
Daily Compliance News: July 2, 2020-the Novartis Pays More edition
Compliance into the Weeds: Episode 178-the Novartis FCPA Enforcement Action
Episode 148 -- A Review of the Novartis and Alcon FCPA Enforcement Action
The Situation: In a Hatch-Waxman litigation, a district court determined that the claims covering a method of using the drug everolimus to treat kidney cancers were not obvious. The court found a motivation to "pursue"...more
The Federal Circuit exhibited the current status of its obviousness jurisprudence in affirming the District Court's determination that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,410,131 were obvious in a decision handed down...more
In Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc., Novartis scored another obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) win when the Federal Circuit held that a post-URAA child patent could not be cited as an...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Moore, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Obviousness-type double patenting does not invalidate an otherwise validly...more
The Federal Circuit recently decided two appeals, Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC (“Ezra”) and Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharm. Inc. (“Breckenridge”) that both relate to the effect of obviousness-type double...more
On Friday, December 7th, the Federal Circuit handed down two opinions concerning the proper application of the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP). The first, Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures...more
In Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC, the Federal Circuit addressed a narrow but important question regarding its jurisprudence on the issue of obviousness-type double patenting (OTPD). That question was whether its decision...more
Addressing issues of procedural due process and obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision to invalidate a patent in an inter partes review (IPR),...more
Addressing issues of motivation to combine and whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is bound by district court decisions of obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB is not...more
Parallel District Court and PTAB Proceedings - In Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Meyer Prods. LLC, No. 3:14-cv0886-JDP (W.D. Wis. April 18, 2017), the district court for the Western District of Wisconsin drew a clear line...more
On April 12, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283 (“the ’283 patent”) were...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
Can a prior art reference that does not contain a teaching sufficient enough to allow it to be used in an obviousness combination nevertheless be used as a background reference for evidence of motivation to combine? ...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions holding that claims directed to Novartis’s dementia drug compositions containing Exelon were obvious in Novartis AG v. Noven Pharm. Inc., No. 2016-1679 (Fed....more
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision holding that claims directed to Novartis’s multiple sclerosis drug Gilenya were obvious in Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals. Ltd., No. 2016-1352 (Fed. Cir....more
Earlier this summer, in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District Court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted...more
Plaintiff asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,335,031, which is directed to a pharmaceutical composition containing a compound to rivastigmine. The parties stipulated to infringement if the patent was valid. Defendant...more