The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decided not to institute inter partes review (IPR) of key claims of Jazz’s U.S. Patent 8,772,306, which is listed in the Orange Book for Xyrem®. Although the PTAB did institute...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
The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of two Inter Partes Review challenges brought by Amgen, Inc. against two Humira patents covering stable formulations of anti-human Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha...more
In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that held the challenged claims obvious in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding. Although the...more
In In re Urbanski, the Federal Circuit upheld the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding the claims of Urbanski’s patent application obvious. Urbanski had argued that the cited references taught...more
In Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that Prometheus’ claims were invalid as obvious, but in so doing it cited its own precedent regarding...more
In its 2013 decision in In re Morsa, the Federal Circuit vacated an anticipation rejection where “both the Board and the examiner failed to engage in a proper enablement analysis” to establish the enabling quality of the...more
After filing over thirty petitions for Inter Partes Review of Orange Book-listed patents for various drugs, Kyle Bass and his Coalition for Affordable Drugs finally have made it over the first hurdle. The USPTO Patent Trial...more
10/13/2015
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
FDA Approval ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hedge Funds ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Likelihood of Success ,
Obviousness ,
Orange Book ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Real Party in Interest ,
USPTO
On September 2, 2015, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of another Inter Partes Review brought by Kyle Bass, the Coalition for Affordable Drugs, and other related entities. In denying the...more
9/8/2015
/ Generic Drugs ,
Hedge Funds ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
In Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision that upheld the validity of the Allergan patents relating to Lumigan® 0.01% glaucoma eye drops against obviousness, written...more
8/13/2015
/ Allergan Inc ,
Allergan v Sandoz ,
Enablement Inquiries ,
Inherency ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Written Descriptions
In Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision that upheld the validity of the Allergan patents relating to Lumigan® 0.01% glaucoma eye drops. This decision shows that it is still...more
8/13/2015
/ Allergan Inc ,
Allergan v Sandoz ,
Enablement Inquiries ,
Inherency ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Written Descriptions
I do not usually write about non-precedential Federal Circuit decisions, but I could not let the discussion of “simultaneous invention” in Columbia University v. Illumina, Inc., go without comment. As if protecting patents...more
In Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that Ethicon’s prototype constituted prior art under 35 USC § 102(g) based on its earlier date of conception, but...more
In Par Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Twi Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court decision holding the Par claims at issue obvious. The district court decision rested in part on the doctrine...more
On October 20, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying the petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc filed in Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. While the order itself may not be...more
In AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that a second patent covering AbbVie’s Humira product is invalid under the doctrine of obviousness-type...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
In K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that upheld the decision of the Central Reexamination Unit Examiner that refused to hold...more
Can a later-granted patent render an earlier-granted patent invalid for obviousness-type double patenting? In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Limited, the Federal Circuit held that it can. This decision could have...more
Now that the Goodlatte Innovation Act has passed the House, its provisions likely will be reconciled with the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act (S. 1720) that was introduced in the Senate by Senator Leahy (D-Vt.) on...more
In Galderma Laboratories v. Tolmar, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s findings that the Orange Book-listed patents for Galderma’s Differin® 0.3% gel product were not invalid as obvious. In so doing, the...more
In the non-precedential decision in In re Eaton, the Federal Circuit reversed the USPTO Board decision affirming rejections of anticipation and obviousness. The court found that the Board decision strayed from its own claim...more
One of the provisions of the Innovation Act introduced by Congressman Goodlatte (R-VA) on October 23, 2014, purports to codify the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting for applications and patents examined under the...more
In Rambus, Inc. v. Rea, the Federal Circuit found several legal and procedural errors in the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated certain claims of the Rambus patent as obvious. While...more
In Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Lt. v. Rae, the Federal Circuit issued a rare decision reversing an obviousness determination by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)....more