In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Supreme Court interpreted the “on sale bar” of the America Invents Act (AIA) version of 35 U.S.C. § 102 as unchanged from the pre-AIA version. In so doing, the...more
1/30/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Assignment of Inventions ,
Confidentiality Agreements ,
Helsinn Healthcare SA v Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc ,
Inventions ,
On-Sale Bar ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Public Use ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 102 ,
Third-Party Relationships
I previously wrote about the standing issue addressed in Amerigen Pharmaceuticals v. UCB Pharma GMBH. In this article, I look at the lead compound analysis that led the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to uphold the...more
Although “any person” except the owner can challenge a patent in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, only those who satisfy the constitutional requirements for standing can appeal a decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and...more
1/23/2019
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Article III ,
FDA Approval ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Orange Book ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Standing
In Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc., Novartis scored another obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) win when the Federal Circuit held that a post-URAA child patent could not be cited as an...more
12/18/2018
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Novartis ,
Obviousness ,
Orange Book ,
OTDP ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Term Adjustment ,
Patent Term Extensions ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Pre-GATT ,
USPTO
In Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC, the Federal Circuit addressed “the interplay between a patent term extension (PTE) granted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 156 and the obviousness-type double patenting doctrine.” In upholding 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
In In re Copaxone Consolidated Cases, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision finding four patents directed to a specific dosing regimen for using COPAXONE® 40 mg/ml to treat patients with relapsing multiple...more
The Federal Circuit decision in Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. addressed several aspects of obviousness doctrine. We previously wrote about the impact of a blocking patent on consideration of objective...more
In Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid, the Federal Circuit affirmed the summary judgment decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that held nucleotide primer claims and detection...more
10/12/2018
/ CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101 ,
Summary Judgment ,
USPTO
In Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision finding four Acorda Orange Book-listed patents for Ampyra® invalid as obvious. Acorda raised a number of...more
In Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated seven Orange Book-listed patents for Xyrem®. The main issue on...more
In Endo Pharmaceuticals Solutions, Inc. v. Custopharm Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that two patents listed in the Orange Book for Aveed® had not been shown to be obvious. Although prior art...more
7/26/2018
/ CAFC ,
Inherency ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Public Use ,
Section 103
Practitioners with an international patent practice generally view the U.S. written description requirement as more liberal than similar requirements in other jurisdictions, especially the European Patent Office. That said,...more
In Impax Laboratories Inc. v. Lannett Holdings Inc., the Federal Circuit upheld the district court decision finding that defendants had failed to establish obviousness of AstraZeneca’s Zomig patents (directed to intranasal...more
As we noted in this article on PTAB Trial Insights, Senator Hatch (R-UT) has introduced the Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act, which is intended to restore the brand-generic balance many say has been skewed by Inter Partes Review...more
6/19/2018
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
FDA Approval ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Orange Book ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Post-Grant Review
In Praxair Distrib., Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Prods. IP Ltd., the Federal Circuit found that the printed matter doctrine applies equally to physically embodied information and mental steps, and can be invoked in the...more
5/29/2018
/ Claim Limitations ,
Evidence ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Personalized Medicine ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Printed Matter Doctrine ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101 ,
Section 102 ,
Section 103
In Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co. V. Emcure Pharm. Ltd., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that construed a chemical structure as reading on the lurasidone enantiomer that is the active ingredient of...more
Our first article on Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aventisub, LLC focused on the subject matter eligibility of the personalized method of treatment claims under 35 USC § 101. Next, we considered how the Fanapt® label was...more
5/8/2018
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Orange Book ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Section 101 ,
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
In Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Int’l Ltd., a divided panel of the Federal Circuit upheld Vanda’s personalized method of treatment claims relating to its Fanapt® (iloperidone) product against a...more
In a non-precedential decision issued in In re Bhagat, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that claims directed to certain lipid compositions were ineligible for...more
The USPTO issued a two page memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps noting that some of the USPTO’s written description guidance pertaining to antibody claims is “outdated.” The memo specifically notes withdrawal of the...more
In Novartis v. Lee (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit agreed with the USPTO that “time spent in a continued examination” does not count towards the three years the USPTO is allotted to examine a patent before if it must...more
We’ve written previously about ex parte decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) affirming patent eligibility rejections that seem to be inconsistent with the USPTO’s Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance....more
In Genzyme Corp. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. Ltd., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision upholding Genzyme’s Orange Book listed patent for the cancer drug Mozobil® against an obviousness challenge, because the...more
Although non-precedential, the Federal Circuit decision in Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc. v. Apotex Inc. is worth a read to see how the court “tiptoes” the “fine line between reading a claim in light of the specification, and...more