Patent law in Europe: What pharmaceutical companies need to know
COLIBRI HEART VALVE LLC v. MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC - Before Taranto, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit reversed a $106 million...more
On July 18, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a lower court ruling in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC, holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentees’ doctrine...more
In a July 18 precedential decision in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a $106 million jury verdict against Medtronic for infringement of a patent...more
The doctrine of equivalents (DOE), a creation of the Supreme Court in Graver Tank & Mfg. v. Linde Air Products (1950), is balanced by the concept of prosecution history estoppel (PHE), the contours of which were delineated...more
A judge in the Eastern District of Virginia recently held that cancellation of independent claims in an inter partes review (IPR) did not preclude the plaintiff from asserting infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents...more
Case Name: Almirall, LLC v. Torrent Pharms., Ltd., Civ. No. 20-1373-LPS (D. Del. July 13, 2021) (Stark, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Aczone® Gel, 7.5% (Dapsone); U.S. Patent No. 9,517,219 (“the ’219 patent”)...more
After more than two decades of being the red-headed stepchild of patent infringement before the Federal Circuit, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents has made a dramatic comeback in the past few years, the Court...more
The Federal Circuit during 2019 and 2020 has issued a spate of decisions on the proper application of the Doctrine of Equivalents (see, e.g., UCB, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories Inc. and Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Amneal...more
Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (as a basis of a successful cause of action having renewed vigor before the Federal Circuit recently (see, e.g., "Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC") is...more
Recently, the Federal Circuit has taken up issues relating to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) and a related doctrine, prosecution history estoppel (PHE), that limits the scope of equivalents that can be...more
Amgen, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmas. LLC et al - Before Newman, Lourie, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: An examiner amendment may give rise to prosecution history...more
PHARMA TECH SOLUTIONS, INC. v. LIFESCAN, INC. Before Moore, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Summary: Claims for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a dismissal based on the defendant’s failure to state a claim motion, concluding that under principles of prosecution history estoppel, the patent owner could not...more
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v. HOSPIRA, INC. Before Lourie, Moore, and Taranto. Appeal from the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Summary: A narrowing claim amendment does not necessarily surrender all...more
On August 9, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hospira, Inc., Nos. 2018-2126, 2127, 2128, reversed in-part and affirmed in-part a district court’s determination of...more
The Federal Circuit in Amgen Inc. v. Coherus Biosciences Inc. affirmed a district court decision that once certain subject matter is clearly and unmistakably surrendered during prosecution, the patentee is barred from...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision barring Amgen from asserting an infringement claim under the doctrine of equivalents against Coherus Biosciences because Amgen disclaimed all combinations not identified...more
One-year Clock for Filing IPR Petition Applies to Litigants and Parties that Become Privies of the Litigant Prior to Institution. In Power Integrations, Inc v. Semiconductor Components, Appeal No. 2018-1607, the Federal...more
The decision whether to issue a Restriction Requirement during patent prosecution lies with the patent examiner, not the patent applicant. A Restriction Requirement can nevertheless trigger prosecution history estoppel that...more
In a Report and Recommendation issued December 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Burke in the District of Delaware recommended that Amgen’s BPCIA complaint for infringement against Coherus Biosciences Inc. be dismissed with prejudice...more