News & Analysis as of

Prior Art Claim Construction Pharmaceutical Industry

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

Venable LLP

Pembrolizumab Patent IPR Final Written Decision Issued and Director Review Requested

Venable LLP on

On June 9, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in Merck’s IPR2024-00240 against The Johns Hopkins University’s (“JHU”) U.S. Patent No. 11,591,393 (“the ’393 patent”),...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Enbrel® (etanercept) / Erelzi® (etanercept-szzs) / Eticovo® (etanercept-ykro) - June 2025

Venable LLP on

Etanercept Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: An Enabling Anticipatory Prior Art Reference Need Only Enable a Single Embodiment of the Claim

WilmerHale on

Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MODERNA, INC. [OPINION] (2023-2357, 06/04/2025) (Taranto, Chen, Hughes) - Taranto, J. The Court affirmed the district court’s claim...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Rituxan® (rituximab) / Truxima® (rituximab-abbs) / Ruxience® (rituximab-pvvr) / Riabni™ (rituximab-arrx) - June 2025

Venable LLP on

Rituximab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit: Plans for Future Activity Created a Substantial Risk of Future Infringement

Jones Day on

Restem filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176, directed to stem cells obtained from umbilical cord tissue and isolated through a two-step process to create a specific cell marker expression...more

DLA Piper

What is a “Clear and Unmistakable” Prosecution History Disclaimer?

DLA Piper on

The Federal Circuit’s March 21, 2025 decision in Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc. et al. (No. 2023-2045) and the recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Delegated Rehearing Panel decision in SynAffix B.V. v....more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) / Avtozma® (tocilizumab-anoh) -...

Venable LLP on

Tocilizumab Challenged Claim Types in IPRs: Claims are counted in each IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple IPRs are counted more than once. Within each IPR, claims are counted only once, whether they...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd.

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

Polsinelli

New PTAB Guidance on Enabling Requirement Under § 102 of the AIA and Construction of Chemical Compound

Polsinelli on

Synopsis: In a recently issued final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) found all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No.11,572,334 (“the ’334 patent”) unpatentable.1 The Board’s decision centered...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Highlights the Importance of Separating Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis When Dealing with...

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Torrent Pharma Inc., No. 23-2218 (Fed. Cir. 2025) — On January 10, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s opinion that claims of a Novartis patent are invalid for lack...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

Unexpected Results in Hatch Waxman Litigation: A Review of Legal Decisions from 2023

Womble Bond Dickinson on

Patent owners generally look to secondary indicia to bolster their nonobvious defenses when prior art and/or knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) seem to make the obviousness decision a close call. This...more

BakerHostetler

Incorporated References Can Be Used in an Anticipation Rejection

BakerHostetler on

A claim is said to be anticipated when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or inherently, each and every limitation of the claim. But what happens when a prior art reference discloses some aspects of the...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - January 2020

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

Foley & Lardner LLP

Federal Circuit Agrees “Pharmaceutical Composition” May Be Toxic

Foley & Lardner LLP on

The claim construction determinations in Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. V. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. may leave stakeholders in the pharmaceutical space scratching their heads, and highlights that it’s rarely possible to...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

A Federal Circuit Prescription to Take Away the Pain for Generics - Intellectual Property News

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

Morrison & Foerster LLP

What Are the Top Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA Developments for October 2018?

This month we highlight a new law requiring notification to the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice of biosimilar litigation settlements and perhaps the end of a long-running Mylan venue dispute in Delaware....more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court's claim construction and determination that claim terms were not indefinite in Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc....more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

IP Newsflash - August 2015 #4

SUPREME COURT CASES - The Supreme Court Upholds Prohibition on Charging Royalties After Patent Expiration - In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment LLC, 576 U.S. ---- (2015), the Supreme Court declined to overrule its 1964...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Lessons Learned From the 1st Successful Pharmaceutical IPR Defense of Orange Book Listed Patents

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In three petitions filed on the same day in 2013, styled Amneal v. Supernus, Amneal filed what appears to be the first challenge of Orange Book listed pharmaceutical patents that led to institution followed by a final...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2015) (Circuit Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Hughes, J.) (Appeal from S.D. Fla., Middlebrooks, J.) - Drug...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

GENERICally Speaking - Vol. 4, No. 1

Robins Kaplan LLP on

The Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Life Sciences practice groups at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. are pleased to offer the latest edition of their quarterly publication regarding ANDA patent litigation issues and the...more

22 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