There have been only a few precedential decisions from the Federal Circuit related to obviousness since spring sprung. While these decisions have produced mixed results for the lower courts, clinical study protocols have held...more
Janssen Pharms., Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. et al., Appeal Nos. 2022-1258, -1307 (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part a district court’s bench trial...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA v. CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS, INC. [OPINION] (2021-1360, 12/07/2021) (MOORE, NEWMAN, and REYNA) - Moore, C.J. The Court affirmed the PTAB’s IPR decision...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
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
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS - Before Lourie, Bryson and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: In claims for methods of using apparatuses or compositions, statements of...more
On January 6, 2021, the Federal Court issued its decision in two patent infringement actions pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations involving Teva’s patents pertaining to the...more
On May 5, 2020, Manson J. of the Federal Court issued the second decision on the merits under the amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance Regulations). The Court upheld the validity of Janssen’s patent for...more
As previously reported, the Federal Court granted Teva’s claim for compensation under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations relating to Teva’s bortezomib product (Janssen markets bortezomib as...more
As previously reported, the Federal Court, in a pair of decisions, granted orders prohibiting Apotex and Teva from marketing their generic o-desmethyl-venlafaxine (ODV) succinate products (Pfizer’s PRISTIQ) until expiry of...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) final written decisions finding the claims of Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd.’s (“Yeda”) U.S. Patent Nos. 8,232,250, 8,399,413, and...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Judges Reyna, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Non-prior art evidence may...more
Teva succeeds in section 8 bortezomib action; infringement counterclaim dismissed - On July 18, 2018, Justice Locke of the Federal Court granted Teva’s claim for compensation under section 8 of the Patented Medicines...more
On July 18, 2018, Justice Locke of the Federal Court granted Teva’s claim for compensation under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (PMNOC Regulations) for losses suffered while market...more
On September 22, the Federal Court, in a pair of decisions, granted Orders of prohibition under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations preventing Apotex and Teva from marketing their generic...more
The Circuit issued only one precedential patent case this week, reversing a determination of obviousness as to a Millennium Pharmaceutical patent covering its blockbuster cancer drug Velcade®, thus extending the life of...more
Federal Court of Appeal finds that Apotex did not fail to mitigate its damages in relation to Apo-Trazodone drug submission - On April 6, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the Federal Court’s finding that...more
Only a true invention can be patented; a patent claim to an invention is not valid if the invention was obvious. Assessing obviousness can be thought of as bridging the gap between two cliffs: on one side is the existing...more
On February 8, 2017, the PTAB denied Fustibal LLC’s (“Fustibal”) petition to institute inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,637,553 B2 (“the ’553 patent”) owned by Bayer HealthCare LLC (“Bayer”) (IPR2016-01490). The 553...more
The following are highlights of developments in Canadian life sciences intellectual property and regulatory law in 2016, updating our 2016 mid-year highlights. 1. Substantive patent law developments - Utility and...more
Sleet, J. The court issues findings of fact and conclusions of law and rules on post-trial motions. A 4-day trial took place between November 9-13, 2015. The disputed product is generic forms of plerixafor, which is...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
Case Name: Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. No. 11-6936 (FSH), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26207 (D.N.J. Mar. 4, 2015) (Hochberg, J.). Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Atelvia® (risedronate /...more
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms USA, Inc. - Declining to reconsider its panel decision holding that a pharmaceutical was obvious where a skilled artisan would have altered the lead prior art compound in the...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