New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
The English High Court has held that a patent relating to a once-daily dosing of an active ingredient was invalid for lack of inventive step over prior art posters presented to the public at conferences. The decision has been...more
Antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) is a promising class of cancer treatments with accelerating U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and rapidly growing market size as discussed in previous articles in this series. This...more
On March 4, 2024, Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC (“Merck”) filed four IPRs challenging The Johns Hopkins University (“JHU”) patents covering methods of treatment using pembrolizumab, which Merck sells under the trade name...more
In its recent review of a district court decision the Federal Circuit characterized as "a thorough opinion," the Federal Circuit affirmed invalidation for obviousness of four claims from four different Orange Book-listed...more
In a crowded pharmaceutical art, the deficiencies thereof being so patent that the FDA encouraged industry to address and correct them, concerning a formulation developed to address the opioid crisis raging earlier in this...more
Case Name: AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., No. 2021-1729, 2021 WL 5816742 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2021) (Circuit Judges Taranto, Hughes, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by Stoll, J.; Opinion dissenting in part by Taranto, J.)...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
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 DISTRICT COURT’S FINDINGS REGARDING INDEFINITENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, AND NON-OBVIOUSNESS WERE AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE COURT. Case Name: HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., No. 2017-2149, -2152, -2153,...more
PLAINTIFF’S DISCLAIMER OF CLAIMS FOUND INVALID BY THE PTAB MOOTED ANY CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PATENT, AND A SECOND PATENT-IN-SUIT WAS NOT INVALID BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN...more
In OSI Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Apotex, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that a Tarceva® patent was invalid as obvious because the decision was not supported by a reasonable expectation of success....more
In Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited v. UCB Pharma GmbH, generic drug manufacturer Amerigen appealed a decision of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding UCB’s patent to certain chemical derivatives of diphenylpropylamines...more
Case Name: UCB, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., Fed. Cir. Nos. 2016-2610, 2016-2683, 2016-2685, 2016-2698, 2016-2710, 2017-1001 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2018) (Circuit Judges Prost, Bryson, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by Stoll,...more
Apotex’s Infringement of AstraZeneca’s Omeprazole Formulation Patent Upheld - As previously reported, the Federal Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision released on January 12, 2017 (2017 FCA 9), has affirmed the...more
Federal Court of Appeal opines on the framework for analyzing obviousness-type double-patenting - On November 4, 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Apotex’s appeal in Apotex Inc v Eli Lilly Canada Inc, 2016 FCA...more
Over seven years ago, the Federal Circuit delivered a mixed ruling against Pfizer in litigation against Teva) relating to the pain medication Celebrex® (celocoxib) (where "celocoxib" is...more
Reviewing the district court’s framing of the obviousness inquiry and determination of no motivation to combine for clear error, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination...more
Earlier this week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB" or "Board") handed down what is thought to be the first set of inter partes review ("IPR") Final Written Decisions ("FWDs") in the biopharmaceutical industry. And...more
In three separate but related final written decisions in the first successful defense of a pharmaceutical patent in an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that BMS’s Baraclude® patent is invalid as obvious. In so doing, the court gave little weight to...more
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc. - Addressing the obviousness of combining two known hypertension medications, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a ruling of...more
The Federal Circuit's jurisprudence regarding obviousness as determined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office continues its post-KSR development in Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd. v. Rea, which involves an obviousness...more
“Reverse Payment” Settlements Face Greater Antitrust Scrutiny Following U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in FTC v. Actavis: Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. - Resolving a split among the U.S. Courts of Appeals, the...more
In its third look at the Novo Nordisk A/S patent related to Prandin®, in Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that claim 4 of U.S. Patent No....more