News & Analysis as of

Patent Infringement Pharmaceutical Patents Indefiniteness

Robins Kaplan LLP

Ingenus Pharms., LLC v. Nexus Pharms., Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Cyclophosphamide is an antineoplastic agent used to treat various cancers, including lymphomas, myeloma, leukemia, and breast carcinoma. The ’952 patent, issued to Plaintiffs in May...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Astellas Pharma Inc. v. Zydus, Inc. II

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Astellas sued Lupin and Zydus based on the generics manufacturers’ ANDA filing and their efforts to make and sell generic mirabegron. In the leadup to the 2023 bench trial, the...more

Knobbe Martens

An Obvious Solution to an Unknown Problem?

Knobbe Martens on

IMMUNOGEN, INC. v. STEWART - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Prost. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A solution to a problem can be obvious even when the problem itself was unknown in...more

Smart & Biggar

Canadian patent law 2024: a year in review

Smart & Biggar on

2024 was an active year in Canadian patent law, with the Federal Court issuing several decisions on the merits regarding invalidity and/or infringement. The courts also considered issues of the regulation of patent agents,...more

Goodwin

Janssen v. Teva: Not an April Fool’s Day Joke for Life Sciences Companies

Goodwin on

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

Robins Kaplan LLP

Tris Pharma, Inc. V. Teva Pharms. Usa, Inc., Quillichew Er® (Methylphenidate)

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. No. 20-5212 (KM)(ESK) (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2022) (McNulty, J.)  Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: QuilliChew ER® (methylphenidate); U.S. Patents Nos. 9,545,399 (“the...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Newsletter - January 2022 (Chinese)

Knobbe Martens on

避而不谈可能支持否定性权利要求限定 - 在 Novartis Pharmaceuticals 诉 Accord Healthcare Inc. 一案(上诉案件编号:21- 1070)中,联邦巡回上诉法院认为,一项对药物“速效剂量”避而不谈的专利申请,为要求不存在此类剂量的否定 性权利要求限制提供了书面说明支持。 ...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Newsletter - January 2022 (Japanese)

Knobbe Martens on

記述がないことがクレームの否定的限定のサポートと解釈できる場合がある Federal Circuit は、Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc. (Appeal No. 21-1070) に おいて、薬剤の「初回負荷用量」についての記述がない特許出願は、そのような用量がないことを要 求するクレームの否定的限定に記述によるサポートを提供していることになると判示した。 ...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - January 2022

Knobbe Martens on

January 2022 Federal Circuit Newsletter (Japanese) January 2022 Federal Circuit Newsletter (Chinese)  Silence May Support Negative Claim Limitation In Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc. Appeal No. 21-1070, the...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 18-cv-734, 2021 WL 5323737 (D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2021) (Cecchi, J.)  Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Invega Sustenna® (paliperidone palmitate); U.S. Patent No....more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - February 2021 #2

Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Appeal No. 2020-1074 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2021) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s JMOL ruling that asserted claims of two related pharmaceutical patents...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

IBSA Institut Biochimique, S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

The Federal Circuit has spent the past few years applying the Supreme Court's most recent precedent, Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., on the indefiniteness standards in the patent statute.  35 U.S.C. § 112(b).  The...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Glass Half Empty: Patent Reciting “Half Liquid” Is Indefinite

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the asserted patent claims were invalid as indefinite because the meaning of the term “half-liquid” was not reasonably clear from the...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - October 2019

Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

“Consisting Essentially Of:” Expanding the Scope of Indefiniteness

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s determination, holding a group of patents invalid for indefiniteness. In December 2014, HZNP Medicines LLC (“Horizon”) brought suit against Actavis Laboratories UT,...more

Knobbe Martens

Patent Claim Reciting a List “Consisting Essentially of” Is Indefinite Where the Basic and Novel Property of the Invention Is...

Knobbe Martens on

HZNP Medicines LLC, Horizon Pharma USA, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. Before Prost, Newman, and Reyna.  Appeal from the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: Claims using “consisting...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - August 2019

Knobbe Martens on

Mere Potential for Future Appeal Does Not Prevent Triggering Estoppel of Inter Partes Reexamination When Party Fails to Seek Relief in the First Instance - In Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1591, -1592,...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

Berkheimer v. HP Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018) - In Berkheimer v. HP Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed the District Court’s summary judgment finding that certain claims of a patent were invalid as...more

Fish & Richardson

Massachusetts Patent Litigation Wrap Up – July 2017

Fish & Richardson on

This post is part of a monthly series summarizing notable activity in patent litigation in the District of Massachusetts, including short summaries of substantive orders issued in pending cases. PetEdge, Inc. v....more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

One-E-Way, Inc. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. Case 2016-2105 (June 12, 2017) - A divided panel reverses a determination of indefiniteness by the ITC, ruling that under Nautilus, the claim language, in combination with the...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - August 2015

WilmerHale on

The Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (No. 2014-1431, -1462, 8/28/15) (Prost, Dyk, Wallach). Dyk, J. Reversing award of supplemental damages. "We hold that the intervening change in the law of...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | May 2015

Knobbe Martens on

Overly Narrow Statement Of Problem Can Show Reliance On Hindsight - In INSITE VISION INCORPORATED v. SANDOZ, INC., Appeal No. 2014-1065, the Federal Circuit held that enunciating an overly narrow statement of the problem...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | April 2015

Knobbe Martens on

No Recovery Of Lost Profits From Related Companies’ Activities - In WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. v. NUVASIVE, INC., Appeal Nos. 2013-1576, -1577, the Federal Circuit held that a company was not entitled to lost profits based...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013)

A claim term that can have different meanings or values depending on the method used to measure it renders the claim indefinite because it is impossible for a potential infringer to discern the boundaries of the claim. This...more

24 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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