Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
The Briefing: A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Podcast: The Briefing - A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Ways to Amend the Claims in the Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
On January 9, 2024, the PTAB issued final written decisions in IPR2022-01225 and IPR2022-01226, filed by Mylan on two Regeneron patents directed to dosing of aflibercept — U.S. Patent Nos. 10,130,681 and 10,888,601. The PTAB...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently addressed the issue of “analogous prior art,” a patent law doctrine fundamental to the legal determination of whether a patent is invalid as obvious over the prior art....more
On November 9, 2022, the PTAB issued final written decisions in IPR2021-00880 and IPR2021-00881, filed by Mylan on two Regeneron patents related to aflibercept—U.S. Patent Nos. 9,254,338 and 9,669,069. The PTAB ruled in...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
We previously reported on Judge Chesler’s claim construction order in Sanofi-Aventis v. Mylan et al. concerning Mylan’s proposed insulin glargine pen device, Vystra. This week, following a 5-day bench trial held on December...more
About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: We will periodically report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Abbott Laboratories v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. PTAB Petition: IPR2020-00480; filed January...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
Federal Circuit Finds Claims Directed to Tabbed Spreadsheets Patent Eligible and Claims Directed to Tracking Changes in Documents Ineligible Under Section 101 - In Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, Appeal No....more
We have previously discussed antitrust implications of pharmaceutical companies’ efforts to maximize patent protection for their drugs. Consumers and generic drug makers, for instance, have alleged antitrust violations based...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
The Federal Circuit had the opportunity to provide guidance on a question now in its twilight: what is the standard for determining who is the true inventor under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(f), in Cumberland Pharmaceuticals...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. 3:16-cv-02703; filed May 18, 2016 in the Northern District of California. ...more
Clare v. Chrysler Group LLC (No. 2015-1999, 3/31/16) (Prost, Moore, Wallach) - Moore, J. Affirming summary judgment of non-infringement of patents related to storage compartment for pickup trucks. The Court rejected...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
Don’t want your patent invalidated? Then you should diligently vet any promissory language in that patent because, as the following cases illustrate, such language raises significant risks of patent invalidation on the basis...more
Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Mylan Pharma Acquisition Ltd. et al. v Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC 1:15-cv-06700; filed July 30, 2015 in the Northern District...more