News & Analysis as of

Life Sciences Obviousness Prior Art

Goodwin

Eight on AI: Quick Considerations on Patenting Drug Discovery Therapeutics using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Life...

Goodwin on

Many life science companies are using AI/ML to identify new disease targets and new therapeutics, predict the efficacy and toxicity of potential clinical therapeutic candidates, design clinical trials and dosing or treatment...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

2023 Federal Circuit Case Summaries - Intellectual Property: Year End Report

We are pleased to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural “Year in Review” report that collects and reports on most key patent law-related Federal Circuit decisions for 2023. This is a follow up to the quarterly report we...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2024)

Last week the Federal Circuit handed down a pair of non-precedential decisions affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.  This post concerns the decision in Medtronic, Inc....more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Anticipation and Obviousness in Patent Law: An Analysis of Recent IPR Decisions

In Incept v. Palette Life Sciences 21-2063, 21-2065 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2023), the case addresses the Board’s anticipation and obviousness determinations in two IPRs (IPR2020-00002 and IPR2020-00004), where the Board held the...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. v. Padagis Israel Pharms. Ltd.,

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name:  Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. v. Padagis Israel Pharms. Ltd., No. CV 20-5426 (SRC), 2022 WL 17352334 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2022) (Chesler, J.)  Drug Products and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Duobrii® (halobetasol...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Takeda Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Norwich Pharms., Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Takeda Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Norwich Pharms., Inc., No. 20-8966 (SRC), 2022 WL 17959811 (D.N.J. Dec. 27, 2022) (Chesler, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Vyvanse® (1-lysine-d-amphetamine dimesylate); U.S....more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Adapt Pharma Operations Ltd. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. Narcan® (Naloxone)

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Adapt Pharma Operations Ltd. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Case No. 2020-2106, 25 F.4th 1354 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) (Circuit Judges Newman, Prost, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by Stoll, J.; Dissenting Opinion by...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Adapt Pharma Operations Ltd. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022)

In a crowded pharmaceutical art, the deficiencies thereof being so patent that the FDA encouraged industry to address and correct them, concerning a formulation developed to address the opioid crisis raging earlier in this...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

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

Knobbe Martens

Ranges for Interdependent and Interactive Components Can Be Tricky to Derive

Knobbe Martens on

MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION - Before Lourie, O’Malley and Stoll.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A presumption of obviousness based on overlapping ranges requires showing...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Auxilium Pharms., Inc. v. FCB I LLC

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Auxilium Pharms., Inc. v. FCB I LLC, Civ. No. 20-16456, 2021 WL 2802537 (D.N.J. July 6, 2021) (Vazquez, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Testim® (testosterone gel); U.S. Patents Nos. 7,320,968 (“the ’968...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

CVC Files Reply to ToolGen's Opposition to CVC Preliminary Motion No. 3

On May 20th, Junior Party the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Vienna; and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") filed its Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 3 in Interference No. 106,127 (which...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

CVC Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 3 To Add Claims in ToolGen Patent

On May 20th, Junior Party the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Vienna; and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") filed its Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 3 in Interference No. 106,127 (which...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

Broad Reply No. 3 to CVC's Opposition No. 3 to Broad's Motion No. 3 to De-designate Claims as Not Corresponding to Count No. 1

On March 23rd, Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") filed its Reply to Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University...more

Morgan Lewis

Federal Circuit: Inherency in an Obviousness Analysis

Morgan Lewis on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that data obtained after an asserted patent’s priority date may be used to demonstrate what is “necessarily present” in a prior art embodiment. Although the district court...more

Smart & Biggar

Year-end Round-up: Notable Canadian Patent Cases of 2018

Smart & Biggar on

Earlier this month we published an exhaustive review of the life sciences and regulatory cases in the Canadian courts, and decisions on the merits for the year are summarized in our in our Rx IP Update 2018 Highlights in...more

Knobbe Martens

UC v. Broad Institute: No Interference-In-Fact in CRISPR Genome Editing Applications

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summary - On September 10, 2018, the Federal Circuit decided Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)’s determination of no...more

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

Federal Circuit Remands IPRs to PTAB for Reference Consideration

The non-invasive prenatal testing field has been an active area for patent challenges. Ariosa has challenged patents held by competitors Sequenom and Verinata. The latter is patent owner in two IPR proceedings challenging...more

20 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