News & Analysis as of

Patents Patent Invalidity Patent Infringement

Jones Day

PTAB Allows Three Concurrent IPR Petitions for Unusual Patent Claims

Jones Day on

Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) / Fulphila® (pegfilgrastim-jmdb) / Udenyca® (pegfilgrastim-cbqv) / Ziextenzo®...

Venable LLP on

Pegfilgrastim Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Lantus® / Lantus® SoloSTAR® (insulin glargine recombinant) / Basaglar® (insulin glargine) / Semglee® (insulin...

Venable LLP on

Insulin Glargine Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Reverses District Court’s Application Of Collateral Estoppel

Jones Day on

Kroy IP Holdings, LLC sued Groupon, Inc., alleging infringement of 13 claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660 (“’660 patent’), which relates to incentive programs over computer networks. Those claims were invalidated via...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

You Snooze, You Lose: Federal Circuit Emphasized Once Again the Importance of Preserving Issues for Appellate Review

AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 23-1512 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – On March 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions invalidating all claims of three AliveCor...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

First Quarter 2025 Federal Circuit Law Snapshot

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

Since serving as a Federal Circuit clerk, Michael Hawes has monitored that court's precedential opinions and prepares a deeply outlined index by subject matter (invalidity, infringement, claim construction, etc.) of relevant...more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

Product-by-Process Analysis: Invalidity ≠ Infringement

On March 4, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decision in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No. 23-2054, 2025 WL 679195, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025), finding that the patent...more

Venable LLP

Federal Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Decisions for EYLEA® Biosimilars

Venable LLP on

On March 5, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction against the launch of Celltrion’s proposed EYLEA® (aflibercept) biosimilar CT-P42 in CAFC Case Nos. 24-2058 and 24-2147 (appealing from...more

Polsinelli

Judge Connolly (D. Del.) Overturns $96 Million Molecular Diagnostics Jury Verdict, Finds Patents Invalid Under § 112

Polsinelli on

Synopsis: In a case with implications for the litigious molecular diagnostics space and written description law, Chief Judge Connolly of the District of Delaware reversed a $96 million jury verdict in favor of Natera,...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | February 2025

Knobbe Martens on

In HD Silicon Solutions LLC V. Microchip Technology Inc., Appeal No. 23-1397, the Federal Circuit held that  all but one patent claim were invalid as obvious because the claimed material, as properly construed, was disclosed...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) / Avtozma® (tocilizumab-anoh) -...

Venable LLP on

Tocilizumab Challenged Claim Types in IPRs: Claims are counted in each IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple IPRs are counted more than once. Within each IPR, claims are counted only once, whether they...more

A&O Shearman

Poster Presentation Tied To Business Objectives Serves As Evidence Of Infringement Of Patented Methods

A&O Shearman on

On February 12, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied defendant Parse Biosciences’s (“Parse”) motions for summary judgment that: (i) Parse had never actually conducted any direct or...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Herceptin® (trastuzumab) / Ogivri® (trastuzumab-dkst) / Herzuma® (trastuzumab-pkrb) / Ontruzant® (trastuzumab-dttb)...

Venable LLP on

Trastuzumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

BakerHostetler

A Later-Discovered Improvement to an Invention Cannot Be Used To Reach Back and Invalidate an Earlier-Filed Patent

BakerHostetler on

Novartis markets and sells a combination therapy of valsartan and sacubitril under the brand name Entresto® for the treatment of various forms of heart failure. MSN submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking...more

Amundsen Davis LLC

Preserving Patent Rights: Impact of Public Use on Patenting

Amundsen Davis LLC on

For a business planning to market a product that incorporates an invention, having an enforceable patent to protect the invention is often desirable. Two recent federal circuit cases reiterate what many patent holders and...more

Jones Day

PTAB Retains Jurisdiction Of Expired Patents

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit rejected a recent argument that the PTAB does not have inter partes review (IPR) jurisdiction over expired patents. Because even expired patents involve the grant of public rights, the court explained that...more

Goodwin

Federal Circuit Affirms Injunction Against Celltrion in Aflibercept BPCIA Litigation

Goodwin on

On March 5, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia’s entry of a preliminary injunction preventing Celltrion, Inc. (“Celltrion”) from...more

Hudnell Law Group

Differing Burdens of Proof Limits Estoppel Effect of PTAB Final Written Decision

Hudnell Law Group on

On February 10, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., reversing and remanding a district court ruling that had dismissed Kroy’s patent...more

Hogan Lovells

CJEU expands possibilities for cross-border patent infringement injunctions

Hogan Lovells on

On 25 February, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its much-anticipated decision in BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux (C-339/22) on cross-border competence in patent litigation. At the heart of the dispute is...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Collateral Estoppel Doesn’t Apply to Unchallenged IPR Claims

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that despite a Patent Trial & Appeal Board determination that certain challenged patent claims were unpatentable based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, the patent...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: Federal Circuit Orders Remanded Case Reassigned to New Judge, Finding That Trial Judge’s Statements...

WilmerHale on

Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - HD SILICON SOLUTIONS LLC v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INC. [OPINION] (2023-1397, 2/6/2025) (Lourie, Stoll, Cunningham) - Lourie, J. The Board affirmed the Final Written...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending February 14, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., No. 2023-1359 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) Feb. 10, 2025). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Prost and Taranto. Kroy sued Groupon for patent infringement, asserting thirteen claims. Groupon...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | January 2025

Knobbe Martens on

In Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Appeal No. 23-1354, the Federal Circuit held that under the obviousness standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the motivation to modify prior art does not need to be the same as...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending January 31, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Apple Inc., et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, Nos. 2023-1501, -1554 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Jan. 27, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Lourie and Hughes....more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Exelixis, Inc. v. MSN Labs. Private Ltd.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Cabometyx® (cabozantinib (L)-malate) - Case Name: Exelixis, Inc. v. MSN Labs. Private Ltd., No. 22-228-RGA, 2024 WL 4491176 (D. Del. Oct. 15, 2024) (Andrews, J.)  Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Cabometyx®...more

673 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 27

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide