News & Analysis as of

Appeals Obviousness Pharmaceutical Industry

Knobbe Martens

Litigation Update | July 2025

Knobbe Martens on

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. - Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Federal Circuit found that claims reciting a...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending July 11, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2023-1428 (Fed. Cir. (D. Mass.) July 7, 2025). Opinion by Stark, joined by Prost and Taranto. Egenera owns a patent related to improved systems and methods for deploying and...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Prosecution history primacy: “Consisting essentially of” means what applicant said it meant

In a decision that underscores the primacy of prosecution history to determine claim scope, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s interpretation of the transitional phrase...more

Knobbe Martens

An Eye Toward Prosecution History

Knobbe Martens on

EYE THERAPIES, LLC v. SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC - Before Taranto, Stoll and Scarsi (sitting by designation). The patent’s prosecution history required a restrictive interpretation of the term “consisting essentially of.”...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC

Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, Appeal No. 2023-2173 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2025) In its only precedential patent opinion last week, the Federal Circuit reviewed construction of the transitional claim phrase...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. v. Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2025)

As has been noted recently (Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp.), fact-based decisions from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (typically from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) are reviewed under the substantial...more

Venable LLP

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Unpatentability Findings in Gene Therapy Hemgenix® IPRs

Venable LLP on

On May 22, 2025, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s (Board) Final Written Decisions in Pfizer’s IPR2021-00925 and IPR2021-00926 finding all challenged claims of uniQure’s U.S. Patent No. 9,982,248 (“the ’248 patent”) unpatentable...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Affirms Findings Of Non-Obviousness And Infringement Of Method Of Treatment Patent Claiming Dosing Regimen For...

A&O Shearman on

On March 28, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey decision that Mylan Laboratories Ltd. (“Mylan”) induced...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Mylan Labs. Ltd.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Invega Trinza® (paliperidone palmitate) - Case Name: Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Mylan Labs. Ltd., No. 2023-2042, 2025 WL 946390 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2025) (Circuit Judges Dyk, Prost, and District Judge Goldberg presiding;...more

DLA Piper

Federal Circuit Refines Obviousness Framework for Drug and Biologic Dosing Regimens

DLA Piper on

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court ruling that a pharmaceutical dosing claim limitation was unpatentable due to obviousness-type double patenting. The court found...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Inventor’s Motivation to Combine Does Not Control Obviousness

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision rejecting claims of a patent application directed to a dosing regimen for a cancer treatment, finding the claims to be obvious where the...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025)

Completing a recent jurisprudential "hat trick,"* the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court grant of a preliminary injunction against a biosimilar applicant for Regeneron's EYLEA biologic drug in Regeneron...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Skilled Artisan’s View Is Decisive in Assessing Asserted Claim Drafting Error

The Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) clarified the legal standard for correcting obvious type inaccuracies in patent claims, explaining that the view of a skilled person at the filing date is decisive...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - January 2025 #2

In re Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan), Appeal Nos. 2023-2218, -2220, -2221 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit revived Novartis’s US Patent No. 8,101,659 by reversing the district...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - December 2024

Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1600, -1709 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2024) In this appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Federal...more

White & Case LLP

Federal Circuit Limits the Application of Obviousness-Type Double Patenting for Patents in the Same Family

White & Case LLP on

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

Goodwin

The Appeals Review Panel’s In Re Xencor Decision: The USPTO Provides Its Position on Written Description and Means-Plus-Function...

Goodwin on

On May 17, 2024, an Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) released its decision in Ex parte Chamberlain (referred to in Federal Circuit proceedings as In re Xencor;...more

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

Mind Your Ps and Qs, and Your PTAs Too

Last week, the Federal Circuit held that obviousness-type double patenting trumps patent term adjustment, opening the door for invalidity attacks that to date had been questionable. In re Cellect was an appeal from a...more

Smart & Biggar

Federal Court of Appeal upholds invalidity of fampridine patent

Smart & Biggar on

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

Knobbe Martens

Identical Elements Are Not Required for the Presumption of Obviousness Based on Overlapping Ranges

Knobbe Martens on

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

Smart & Biggar

Federal Court of Appeal upholds decision finding Seedlings' LifeCard patent invalid and not infringed by Pfizer’s EpiPen

Smart & Biggar on

On July 28, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) dismissed Seedling’s appeal from the Federal Court decision of Justice Grammond (2020 FC 1, previously reported), which concluded that certain claims of Seedlings' LifeCard...more

Goodwin

Biosimilar Appellate Roundup: Upcoming Oral Arguments and Decisions

Goodwin on

On December 6, 2019, the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in a rituximab-related appeal by Biogen.  The appeal stems from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Equivalent Disclosure Used to Satisfy Written Description Requirement

Invoking a newly minted equivalent disclosure doctrine, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the written description requirement of § 112 was satisfied in the interest of arriving at a...more

Knobbe Martens

A “Substantially Equivalent” Disclosure May Satisfy the Written Description Requirement

Knobbe Martens on

NALPROPION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL, INC. Before Prost, Lourie and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: A “substantially equivalent” disclosure may...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries

Alston & Bird on

A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more

44 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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