Indefiniteness Before the PTAB
On May 17, 2024, an Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) released its decision in Ex parte Chamberlain (referred to in Federal Circuit proceedings as In re Xencor;...more
On April 1, 2024 the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al., affirming the district court’s finding that certain claims were not indefinite and...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
避而不谈可能支持否定性权利要求限定 - 在 Novartis Pharmaceuticals 诉 Accord Healthcare Inc. 一案（上诉案件编号：21- 1070）中，联邦巡回上诉法院认为，一项对药物“速效剂量”避而不谈的专利申请，为要求不存在此类剂量的否定 性权利要求限制提供了书面说明支持。 ...more
記述がないことがクレームの否定的限定のサポートと解釈できる場合がある Federal Circuit は、Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc. (Appeal No. 21-1070) に おいて、薬剤の「初回負荷用量」についての記述がない特許出願は、そのような用量がないことを要 求するクレームの否定的限定に記述によるサポートを提供していることになると判示した。 ...more
January 2022 Federal Circuit Newsletter (Japanese) January 2022 Federal Circuit Newsletter (Chinese) Silence May Support Negative Claim Limitation In Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc. Appeal No. 21-1070, the...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
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Appeal No. 2020-1074 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2021) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s JMOL ruling that asserted claims of two related pharmaceutical patents...more
In IBSA Institut Biochimique v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. a valuable lesson was learned about relying on a translation of a non-English patent application. The IBSA Institut Biochimique (IBSAIB) hired an Italian patent...more
The Federal Circuit has spent the past few years applying the Supreme Court's most recent precedent, Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., on the indefiniteness standards in the patent statute. 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the asserted patent claims were invalid as indefinite because the meaning of the term “half-liquid” was not reasonably clear from the...more
The Federal Circuit decision in HZNP Medicines LLC v. Horizon Pharma USA, Inc. is a good reminder that even standard “patent lingo” can cause trouble down the line. Now that the court has denied rehearing en banc (with Judges...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s determination, holding a group of patents invalid for indefiniteness. In December 2014, HZNP Medicines LLC (“Horizon”) brought suit against Actavis Laboratories UT,...more
HZNP Medicines LLC, Horizon Pharma USA, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. Before Prost, Newman, and Reyna. Appeal from the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: Claims using “consisting...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2149, et al. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2019) - In a lengthy decision following a bench trial, the Court addressed a matter of...more
Mere Potential for Future Appeal Does Not Prevent Triggering Estoppel of Inter Partes Reexamination When Party Fails to Seek Relief in the First Instance - In Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1591, -1592,...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - BioDelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1643, -1644, -1645 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2019) - Our case of the week this week focuses on Section 314(d)—the...more
In an opinion issued November 19, 2018, Judge Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey found two Orange Book-listed patents for VIMOVO® invalid for indefiniteness in the way certain pharmacokinetic...more
Distribution Agreements Can Constitute Offers for Sale Under Section 102(b) - In The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2014-1469, 2014-1504, the Federal Circuit held that a distribution agreement qualified as...more
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018) - In Berkheimer v. HP Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed the District Court’s summary judgment finding that certain claims of a patent were invalid as...more
In Bayer v. Watson, the panel throws out Bayer’s patent to its Staxyn erectile dysfunction drug as being obvious, noting that the district court focused too heavily on the commercial availability of the prior art. The panel...more
This post is part of a monthly series summarizing notable activity in patent litigation in the District of Massachusetts, including short summaries of substantive orders issued in pending cases. PetEdge, Inc. v....more
One-E-Way, Inc. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. Case 2016-2105 (June 12, 2017) - A divided panel reverses a determination of indefiniteness by the ITC, ruling that under Nautilus, the claim language, in combination with the...more
Patent owners will applaud the Federal Circuit’s latest pronouncement on divided infringement, inducement of infringement, and claim definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.,...more