We discussed Braintree Labs v. Novel Labs in a previous post. In the panel decision, Judge Prost, with Judge Dyk joining, found the term “a patient” in Braintree’s Suprep colon cleanser patent to mean a general class of persons, i.e., a patient population. Accordingly, the panel vacated and remanded the infringement ruling relying on erroneous […]
A recent Federal Circuit case shows that broad, functionally-defined genus claims are susceptible to written-description invalidity challenges. In AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al., the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict invalidating a patent, finding that there was substantial evidence to conclude that the claims failed to meet the Patent […]
On June 18, 2014, the Patent Office issued changes to how it calculates patent term adjustments under 35 U.S.C. § 154. The new rules—drafted in response to the Federal Circuit’s decision in Novartis AG v. Lee, 740 F.3d 593 (Fed. Cir. 2014)—are now subject to public comment for the next sixty days. As we discussed […]
We discussed the Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in a previous post, in which a Judge Burke of the District of Delaware found the patent for the hepatitis B drug entecavir (the active ingredient in Baraclude) obvious. Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed. There were two main issues on appeal, the selection of […]
Last week, in Allergan Inc. v. Apotex Inc., a panel of the Federal Circuit reversed a finding from the Middle District of North Carolina that patents covering Allergan’s Latisse® (bimatoprost ophthalmic solution) were not invalid for obviousness. In doing so, the Federal Circuit reinforced the principle that the obviousness analysis, including secondary considerations of nonobviousness, […]
In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., handed down last week, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that there can be no liability for induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) if no one has directly infringed the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). While that principle may seem self-evident, it was not so […]
This morning, in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s formulation of the definiteness requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 2. Under the now-abandoned iteration of the definiteness test, claims were deemed to have satisfied the statutory requirement so long as they were “amenable to construction” and “not insolubly […]
In a previous post, we wrote about developing trial themes early. In this post, we explore the importance of using depositions to support that trial theme. In ANDA cases, particularly those with multiple defendants, we have noticed a trend. Attorneys are not taking the time to adequately prepare for depositions or to think strategically about their […]
In Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Federal Circuit’s standard for awarding attorneys’ fee under 35 U.S.C. § 285 is too rigid, lowering the burden for successful patent litigants to recover their fees. All patent litigants should take heed: the risk of patent litigation just […]
In the recent Braintree Labs v. Novel Labs, the Federal Circuit may have limited the value of composition for methods of treatment claims. The patent-in-suit related to compositions for preparing the bowels of a patient ready for colonoscopy. In particular, the claims were to a bowel prep composition “for inducing purgation of the colon of […]