News & Analysis as of

Patents Prior Art Mylan Pharmaceuticals

Goodwin

PTAB Issues Final Written Decisions Finding Claims of Aflibercept-related Patents Invalid

Goodwin on

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

Proskauer - Minding Your Business

Recent Federal Circuit Decision Highlights Importance of Analogous Prior Art Doctrine

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschlan GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.

The Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision finding the challenged claims of Sanofi-Aventis’ ’614 patent unpatentable as obvious....more

Knobbe Martens

Analogous Art Must Be Compared to the Challenged Patent

Knobbe Martens on

In Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., Case No. 2021-1981, the Federal Circuit reversed an obviousness determination by the PTAB. At issue was Sanofi’s reissued U.S. Patent No. RE47,614 (the ’614 patent),...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Analogous Art Must Be Compared to Challenged Patent

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness decision, finding that a prior art reference relating to automotive engine parts was not analogous art to the challenged...more

Goodwin

PTAB Issues Final Written Decisions Finding Claims of Regeneron’s Aflibercept Patents Invalid

Goodwin on

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

BakerHostetler

Federal Circuit Develops the ‘At Once Envisage’ Standard of Anticipation and Affirms the Importance of Specialized Considerations...

BakerHostetler on

Anticipation of a claim generally requires that a single prior art reference explicitly discloses each and every claim element. However, absent an express teaching in the prior art, a claim may also be anticipated if it is...more

McDermott Will & Emery

For Inherent Anticipation, How Many Is Too Many?

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision that prior art disclosing a class of 957 salts could not inherently anticipate claims to a salt within the class because...more

Fish & Richardson

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Final Written Decision that Merck’s Claimed Inventions Were Not “At Once Envisaged” From the Prior...

Fish & Richardson on

​​​​​​​Sixty years ago, the Federal Circuit’s predecessor court, the Court of Customs and Patent appeals, considered whether the prior art disclosure of a chemical genus anticipated species falling within the scope of that...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Valeant Pharms Int’l, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

PTAB Life Sciences Report - February 2020

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

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2018

Knobbe Martens on

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

Jones Day

Post-Priority Document Usable As Evidence of POSITA Motivation

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) final written decisions finding the claims of Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd.’s (“Yeda”) U.S. Patent Nos. 8,232,250, 8,399,413, and...more

Knobbe Martens

Yeda Research And Development Co., Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. & Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Judges Reyna, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Non-prior art evidence may...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Four Years of IPRs: Lessons from Proceedings for the Cabilly II Patent

It has been four years since the first inter partes review proceedings were filed in the United States. The first IPR petition, filed on September 16, 2012 (the first day IPRs became available), made it all the way to the...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Pfizer Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Pfizer Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., Civ. No. 10-528-GMS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150283 (D. Del. Oct. 22, 2014) (Sleet, J.) (When a POSA would have to undertake significant guesswork to vary the parameters of...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Research Foundation of State University of New York v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013)

When assessing the validity of a patent, you cannot ignore the dependent claims. That was the main takeaway from the recent Federal Circuit case, Research Foundation of State University of New York v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals...more

17 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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