Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - LKQ CORPORATION v. GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC [OPINION] (2021-2348, 5/21/24) Moore, Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, and Stark - Stoll,...more
Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-2263, -2264, -2265, -2266 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2023) In an appeal from a stipulated judgment of noninfringement and invalidity following an adverse claim construction...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: Takeda Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Norwich Pharms., Inc., No. 20-8966 (SRC), 2022 WL 17959811 (D.N.J. Dec. 27, 2022) (Chesler, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Vyvanse® (1-lysine-d-amphetamine dimesylate); U.S....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
Case Name: Adapt Pharma Operations Ltd. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Case No. 2020-2106, 25 F.4th 1354 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) (Circuit Judges Newman, Prost, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by Stoll, J.; Dissenting Opinion by...more
Case Name: Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 18-cv-734, 2021 WL 5323737 (D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2021) (Cecchi, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Invega Sustenna® (paliperidone palmitate); U.S. Patent No....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
Joint inventorship has been called "one of the muddiest concepts in the muddy metaphysics of patent law" because the "exact parameters of what constitutes joint inventorship are quite difficult to define." Mueller Brass Co....more
Case Name: Auxilium Pharms., Inc. v. FCB I LLC, Civ. No. 20-16456, 2021 WL 2802537 (D.N.J. July 6, 2021) (Vazquez, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Testim® (testosterone gel); U.S. Patents Nos. 7,320,968 (“the ’968...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
We previously reported on the decision by the District of New Jersey (Cecchi, J.) to uphold the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,063,182, related to “the fusion protein etanercept, the active ingredient in Immunex’s product...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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding regarding motivation to combine based only on conclusory expert testimony was not supported by substantial...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
The Federal Circuit applied the constitutional principle under Article III that there must be a case or controversy for a federal court to enter judgment (in this case, of invalidity) in ANDA litigation that can be vitiated...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
Following a four-day bench trial before him in Shire Orphan Therapies LLC et al. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Civil Action No. 15-1102-GMS (D.Del. June 5, 2018), and having considered the entire record in the case and the...more
Following a five-day bench trial in the matter in February 2017 and after having considered the entire record in the case and the applicable law, the Court, through Memorandum, entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in...more
Sportbrain Holdings LLC (“Sportbrain”) is a company that was previously engaged in the business of selling fitness trackers. Sportbrain recently sued eight smartwatch manufacturers for alleged infringement of its U.S. Patent...more
Robinson, J. Findings of fact and conclusions of law following bench trial finding that the asserted claims of one patent are not obvious, the asserted claims of a second patent are obvious, and defendant infringes the valid...more
As we previously reported, the district court in Janssen v. Celltrion (in which U.S. Patent Nos. 6,284,471 and 7,598,083 are at issue) began hearing oral argument on August 16 on Celltrion’s motion for summary judgment that...more
The PTAB Does Not Have to Consider New Arguments Raised in IPR Reply Briefs - In Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1693, the Federal Circuit upheld a PTAB decision finding of...more
Federal Circuit Construes Claim Term in a Manner that Rendered Claim Language Superfluous - In SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, Appeal No. 2015-1251, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s...more