New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
On August 13, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential ruling in Allergan v. MSN Laboratories (Case No. 24-1061). This decision reversed the District of Delaware's application of the Federal Circuit precedent in In re:...more
On August 13, 2024, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision, authored by Judge Lourie, in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., No. 24-1061, which limits the...more
The English High Court has held that a patent relating to a once-daily dosing of an active ingredient was invalid for lack of inventive step over prior art posters presented to the public at conferences. The decision has been...more
In August 2023, the Federal Circuit in In re Cellect held that in evaluating unpatentability for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) of a patent that has received patent term adjustment (PTA), the relevant date is the...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
On March 4, 2024, Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC (“Merck”) filed four IPRs challenging The Johns Hopkins University (“JHU”) patents covering methods of treatment using pembrolizumab, which Merck sells under the trade name...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. PARKERVISION, INC. v. VIDAL [OPINION] (2022-1548, 12/15/2023) (Prost, Wallach, and Chen)* - Chen, J. The Court affirmed the PTAB’s determination that the patent...more
On August 22, 2023, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential decision holding that claims directed to deuterated analogs of ruxolitinib were unpatentable as obvious. Sun Pharm. Indus., Inc. v. Incyte Corp., No....more
The Federal Circuit reviewed the latest decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review that claims 3-6 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,548,019 are obvious, in Rembrandt Diagnostics LP v. Alere,...more
Ascertaining the differences between prior art and claims at issue requires interpreting the claim language and considering both the invention and the prior art references as a whole. The Supreme Court emphasized “the need...more
Objective Evidence in Determining Obviousness - In Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations, Appeal No. 21-2357, the Federal Circuit held that a close prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by strong evidence of...more
The Federal Court of Appeal has dismissed Lilly’s appeals of judgments that held Canadian Patent No. 2,371,684 (the 684 patent) claims invalid. The decision, Eli Lilly v Apotex, 2023 FCA 125, was issued on June 2, 2023....more
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
MEDTRONIC, INC. v. TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS - Before Moore, Lourie, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A close prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by strong evidence of objective...more
Procedural History - UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., is an appeal from a judgment in a Hatch-Waxman suit in the District of Delaware that found the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,130,589 (the “’589...more
An appellant's burden on appeal is never easy but it is particularly difficult when the questions at issue are based on factual evidence. The appellate judiciary is loathe (generally) to second guess a district court judge...more
The Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) dismissed an appeal by Biogen and a cross-appeal by Taro from a decision of the Federal Court... dismissing two actions by Biogen under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance)...more
In a patent infringement action brought under subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, in relation to sitagliptin phosphate monohydrate (Merck’s JANUVIA), Justice Furlanetto of the Federal...more
ALMIRALL, LLC v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC - Before Lourie, Chen, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Presumption of obviousness based on overlapping ranges applied where a...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
Ranges for Interdependent and Interactive Components Can Be Tricky to Derive - In Modernatx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, Appeal No. 20-2329, the Federal Circuit held that a presumption of obviousness based on...more
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., v. CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS, INC. Before Moore, Newman, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Limitations, such as specific drug doses, in claim language can...more
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
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
It’s No Secret That a Related Company’s Physical Presence in a Jurisdiction May Not Be Enough For Proper Venue - In Andra Group, LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, Appeal No. 20-2009, The Federal Circuit held that an...more