New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
There have been only a few precedential decisions from the Federal Circuit related to obviousness since spring sprung. While these decisions have produced mixed results for the lower courts, clinical study protocols have held...more
Janssen Pharms., Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. et al., Appeal Nos. 2022-1258, -1307 (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part a district court’s bench trial...more
As previously reported, the Federal Court found Janssen’s Canadian Patent No. 2,661,422 (the 422 patent) invalid on the basis of obviousness and dismissed its actions against Apotex, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, and...more
As previously reported, in the final decision released under the pre-amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Regulations), the Federal Court granted a prohibition order relating to Canadian Patent No....more
UPDATE: UPDATE: On December 10, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Pfizer’s application for leave to appeal (Docket No. 39150) (see article here). Pfizer seeks leave in pregabalin section 8 case As previously...more
On May 5, 2020, Manson J. of the Federal Court issued the second decision on the merits under the amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance Regulations). The Court upheld the validity of Janssen’s patent for...more
As previously reported, the Federal Court granted Teva’s claim for compensation under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations relating to Teva’s bortezomib product (Janssen markets bortezomib as...more
On October 29, 2019, the Federal Court issued its final decision under the pre-amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations: Janssen Inc v Apotex Inc, 2019 FC 1355. Justice Phelan granted Janssen’s...more
On July 18, 2018, Justice Locke of the Federal Court granted Teva’s claim for compensation under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (PMNOC Regulations) for losses suffered while market...more
In In re: Janssen Biotech, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) holding that, for the purposes of the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 121, a patent owner of a...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,284,471 as being unpatentable under the doctrine of...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has now filed its response brief in In re: Janssen Biotech, Inc., New York University, No. 2017-1257 (Fed. Cir.), the Federal Circuit appeal involving U.S. Patent No....more
This past April, the FDA approved Inflectra® (infliximab-dyyb), Celltrion and Hospira’s biosimilar of Janssen’s Remicade®. According to papers filed in the Federal Circuit this week, Celltrion and Hospira (collectively,...more
We previously wrote about Judge Wolf’s decision to invalidate Janssen Biotech, Inc.’s (“Janssen”) biopharmaceutical patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,284,471 (the “’471 Patent”)), based on the doctrine of obviousness-type double...more
As we previously reported, after the district court found that all the asserted claims of the ’471 patent were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting, Celltrion moved for entry of final judgment on that patent under...more
In a recent decision on obviousness-type double patenting, Judge Wolf shortened the shelf life of a dispute between Janssen Biotech, Inc. (“Janssen”) and Celltrion Healthcare Co. Inc. (“Celltrion”), relating to a...more