New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
Explore skinny labelling & obviousness in Canada and Australia - If you are an intellectual property (IP) owner, a litigator or an in-house legal professional managing IP litigation in multiple jurisdictions, don’t miss...more
On December 27, 2023, Chief Judge Catherine Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted a motion for preliminary injunction by Natera Inc. enjoining NeoGenomics Laboratories Inc. from...more
The District Court for the District of Delaware recently held on summary judgment that a patent with 2,295 days of combined patent term adjustment (PTA) and patent term extension (PTE) was not invalid for obviousness-type...more
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
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
Case Name: Arius Two, Inc. v. Alvogen PB Rsch. & Dev. LLC, No. 2022-1394, 2022 WL 17828352 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 21, 2022) (Circuit Judges Chen, Clevenger, and Cunningham presiding; Opinion by Chen, J.) (Appeal from D. Del.,...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
ACI’s 8th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes Master Symposium returns in person to Chicago on September 21-22! Join leading pharmaceutical patent litigators for brand name and generic drug companies to receive up-to-the-minute...more
In the weeks preceding a recent Hatch-Waxman bench trial, a district court excluded portions of an expert’s opinion on obviousness that addressed internal documents and inventor testimony concerning the “inventors’ path” to...more
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
[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
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
Case Name: AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., No. 2021-1729, 2021 WL 5816742 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2021) (Circuit Judges Taranto, Hughes, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by Stoll, J.; Opinion dissenting in part by Taranto, J.)...more
Biogen International GMBH, Biogen MA, Inc., v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. marks the Federal Circuit’s most recent interpretation of the 35 U.S.C. § 112 written description requirement in the Hatch-Waxman context. No....more
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
Join the conference that the “who’s who” of Hatch-Waxman litigators have designated as the forum which sets the standards for Paragraph IV practice. ACI’s Paragraph IV Litigation Conference is returning LIVE & IN-PERSON to...more
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
The Federal Circuit reversed a decision from the District Court for the District of Delaware invalidating three patents on anticipation grounds, finding the district court improperly relied on disclosures from multiple...more
THE DISTRICT COURT’S FINDINGS REGARDING INDEFINITENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, AND NON-OBVIOUSNESS WERE AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE COURT. Case Name: HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., No. 2017-2149, -2152, -2153,...more
PLAINTIFF’S DISCLAIMER OF CLAIMS FOUND INVALID BY THE PTAB MOOTED ANY CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PATENT, AND A SECOND PATENT-IN-SUIT WAS NOT INVALID BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories, FL, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1221 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2019) - This week’s Case of the Week focuses on issues relating to written...more
The Federal Circuit upholds the validity of a patent covering a polymorphic form of a chemical compound. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held in Grünenthal Gmbh v. Alkem Labs. Ltd. that...more
PTAB May Invalidate Claims on Reconsideration Based on Grounds Raised in the Institution Decision that Were Not Originally Instituted - In AC Technologies S.A., V. Amazon.Com, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Appeal No....more
Case Name: UCB, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., Fed. Cir. Nos. 2016-2610, 2016-2683, 2016-2685, 2016-2698, 2016-2710, 2017-1001 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2018) (Circuit Judges Prost, Bryson, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by Stoll,...more