5 Key Takeaways | Making Sense of §102 Public Use and On Sale Bars to Patentability
Building a Cost-Effective Global Patent Portfolio Using the Netherlands
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Conflicting Application in China’s Patent System
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
The Patent Process | Interview with Patent Attorney, Robert Greenspoon
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Nonpublication Requests For Patent Applications: Disadvantages
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB?
What the First-to-File Patent Change Means (And What IP Strategists Should Do About It)
In Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that a pharmaceutical dosing claim limitation was nonobvious despite prior...more
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
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Appeal No. 2023-1977 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed that defendant Alkem’s proposed generic antibiotic did not...more
This case is an appellate review of the district court’s findings regarding patent obviousness and priority date. Background Amgen produces and markets apremilast, a medication for the treatment of certain types of psoriasis...more
Case Name: Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma Ltd. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. No. 18-390 (MN), 2022 WL 3562555 (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2022) (Noreika, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Velphoro® (sucroferric...more
On June 21, in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., a reshuffled Federal Circuit panel reversed course on rehearing to find that a negative claim limitation was not supported by silence in the...more
In a crowded pharmaceutical art, the deficiencies thereof being so patent that the FDA encouraged industry to address and correct them, concerning a formulation developed to address the opioid crisis raging earlier in this...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a finding that patents covering Narcan, a naloxone-based intranasal opioid overdose treatment, were obvious despite evidence of long-felt need. Adapt Pharma Operations...more
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
On January 3, in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., the Federal Circuit found written description support for a negative claim limitation, even though the negative claim limitation did not have...more
When does the absence of evidence turn into evidence of absence, and when does such absence amount to an adequate written description of the absence of a step of a method claim? This is a question that comes readily to mind...more
There are some cases where the Federal Circuit makes its decision based on the eternal verities of patent law (insofar as there are any eternal verities in patent law). One such decision arose earlier this month when the...more
Joint inventorship has been called "one of the muddiest concepts in the muddy metaphysics of patent law" because the "exact parameters of what constitutes joint inventorship are quite difficult to define." Mueller Brass Co....more
Case Name: Auxilium Pharms., Inc. v. FCB I LLC, Civ. No. 20-16456, 2021 WL 2802537 (D.N.J. July 6, 2021) (Vazquez, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Testim® (testosterone gel); U.S. Patents Nos. 7,320,968 (“the ’968...more
University of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting LLC, Appeal No. 2021-2243 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2021) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed an inter partes review decision finding claims directed to...more
Imposition of liability under the equitable doctrine of inequitable conduct (as it has been variously defined) can result in a patent being held unenforceable; for this reason, former Chief Judge Rader called it the "atomic...more
The Federal Circuit (in an unpublished opinion) recently reaffirmed the difficulty generic challengers face when trying to establish chemical structural obviousness to invalidate a drug compound patent claim. This recent...more
In a terse, non-precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's judgment that Defendants Torrent Pharmaceuticals and Indoco Remedies Ltd. had failed to prove that the claims asserted by...more
Stipulating to infringement after a contrary claim construction is a conventional stratagem for a losing party to have a final judgment that can be challenged before the Federal Circuit. The risk of course, is that if the...more
BECAUSE THE PRIOR ART TAUGHT OVERLAPPING PH RANGES AND STRUCTURALLY SIMILAR COMPOUNDS AS THOSE CLAIMED IN THE PATENT-IN-SUIT, THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT REVERSED SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS. Case Name: Valeant Pharms...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al., Appeal Nos. 2018-2414, et al. (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2020) - In this appeal from Markman and summary judgment opinions by the district court in a...more
The Federal Circuit recently reversed a lower court’s ruling of validity under the § 112 written description requirement effectively opening the door for a number of generic drug manufacturers to enter the market with a...more
There are provisions and interpretations of U.S. patent law that can be in tension depending on the circumstances under which they are argued, whether before an Examiner or during litigation. One of these is the dichotomy...more
Case Name: Tris Pharma Inc. v. Actavis Labs. Fl, Inc., Fed. Cir. Nos. 2017-2557, -2559, -2560, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32774 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 20, 2018) (Circuit Judges Newman, O’Malley, and Chen presiding; Opinion by Chen, J.)...more
Case Name: Bayer Intellectual Prop. GmbH v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., No. 15-902, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116931 (D. Del. July 13, 2018) (Stengel, C.J.)....more