PATENTS ARE AWARDED FOR INVENTIONS, NOT RESEARCH PLANS

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit reversed the District of New Jersey’s final judgment that two patents directed to methods of administering NSAIDs were adequately described under § 112. Nuvo Pharm. (Ir.) Designated Activity Co. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14345 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Both of the asserted patents are […]

Post-Priority-Date Evidence May Be Relevant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 Inquiry

Recently, the Federal Circuit reversed a jury decision upholding the validity of two Amgen patents directed to a large genus of antibodies that reduce LDL cholesterol. Amgen et al. v. Sanofi et al., No. 2017-1480.  Defendants argued that the patents failed to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112.  The […]

Federal Circuit Finds Barr Does Not Infringe But Rejects Enablement and Written Description Defenses

The recent appeal of Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc., No. 2012-1340 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2014) touched on several of the patent-law issues you will encounter in ANDA cases: infringement, written description, and enablement. Barr sought to market a generic version of Alcon’s glaucoma and ocular hypertension drug Travatan Z®.  Alcon filed suit […]

Federal Circuit Finds Sufficient Written Description

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the District of Delaware’s rejection of a lack of written description defense in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc., No. 2013-1593 (Fed. Cir. 2014).  GlaxoSmithKline sued several generic companies for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,565,467, which is listed in the Orange Book for Avodart (dutasteride), a treatment for enlarged […]