Biologic drugs, many of which are antibodies, represent an increasing share of the pharmaceutical market. In recent years, numerous broad functional patent claims directed at therapeutic antibodies have come under attack for failing to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements. The proper scope of these requirements has divided the biopharmaceutical industry. In its latest…
Today (20 January 2021) seems to be a perfect day to celebrate democracy and the rule of law. I will therefore not keep you up for too long, but just wanted to make a short personal comment and a call to all of us discussing the UPCA and the latest events in Germany regarding the…
St. Jude Medical failed to show that challenged claims of patent owned by Snyders had been anticipated by other patents, nor did it prove that a particular combination demonstrated obviousness. Claims of a patent directed to an artificial heart valve manufactured by Snyders Heart Valve LLC and a system for inserting the valve were not…
PTAB did not err in its claim construction or obviousness findings in two IPRs filed by Westinghouse that challenged two Siemens patents. Substantial evidence supported two Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions following inter partes review of two related patents directed toward methods and systems for automatically activating a train warning device, including a horn,…
In Immunex Corp. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al., the Federal Circuit found that there was no obviousness-type double patenting because there was no “common ownership” of patents under an agreement where Roche retained key rights to the patents-in-suit. Immunex Corp., v. Sandoz Inc., ___ F.3d ___, No. 2020-1037 (Fed. Cir. July 1, 2020)….
Declarations from generic drug makers alleged only possible future injury from implementation of the 2019 law that created a presumption that so-called “pay for delay” settlement agreements are anticompetitive. A trade association for the generic pharmaceutical industry failed to demonstrate standing to challenge a California law that created a presumption that “reverse payment” settlement agreements…
The PTAB did not err in finding that airplane interior designers would have been motivated to combine prior art to arrive at the space-saving configuration disclosed by the challenged patents. Challenged claims of patents related to space-saving technologies for aircraft lavatories and other aircraft enclosures were correctly determined by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board…
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.—which had successfully petitioned for IPR—withdrew from the case after Huawei filed its appeal, but the U.S. government intervened to defend the PTAB’s decision. Substantial evidence supported the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s findings that a relevant artisan would have found obvious the claims of a patent directed to enabling a mobile…
The PTAB did not establish the existence of a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aspects of existing patents and prior art. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has vacated and remanded a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that a patent…
In the United States, a judge may increase the damages for patent infringement up to threefold[1] resulting in awards of millions, or even billons, of dollars. In 2016, the Supreme Court, in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics,[2] rejected the then prevailing objective standard for determining enhanced damages and replaced it with a subjective one requiring,…
