Last Wednesday we commented on a Delaware decision (Andrews, J.) applying the Federal Circuit’s Mayo analysis to find that a patent on a new dosing regimen for an old drug lacked patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice in Pharma Land. Two days later, the Federal Circuit affirmed another Delaware decision (Stark, J.) […]
Ever since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014), courts have churned out countless decisions holding patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming unpatentable subject matter. Most of these patents have involved the application of well-known business methods by means of a computer. In those cases, […]
Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its panel opinion in two cases: Accorda Therapeutics Inc. and Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmacueticals, Inc. and Mylan Inc. and AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmacueticals, Inc. The question before the Court in both cases was whether Mylan was properly subject to jurisdiction in the District of Delaware. […]
The PTAB recently rejected Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories’ IPR petitions for Galderma’s patent covering its Oracea® (doxycycline) product for the treatment of rosacea. Galderma’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,603,506 (“’506 patent”) is directed to the treatment of rosacea using low dosages of the tetracycline antibiotic doxycycline. Dr. Reddy’s filed three petitions for IPR against the ’506 […]
U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb recently found two of three patents covering the epilepsy drug Oxtellar XR® to be valid and infringed. Supernus Pharms. Inc. v. Actavis Inc. et al., Civ. No. 13-cv-4740 (D. N.J. Feb. 5, 2016). As part of her opinion following a bench trial, Judge Bumb ruled that the term “homogeneous […]
On Monday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision from the Southern District of New York that four patents listed in the Orange Book for OxyContin® are invalid as anticipated and obvious in Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. This post addresses the second half of that decision, which was directed to a patent […]
Yesterday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision from the Southern District of New York that four patents listed in the Orange Book for OxyContin® are invalid as anticipated and obvious in Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. This decision addressed two groups of patents: three product-by-process patents directed to oxycodone API, and a […]
Last week we posted about the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, deferring to the PTAB’s application of the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard in IPR proceedings. The Federal Circuit recently gave deference to the PTAB in another context in Redline Detection LLC v. Star Envirotech Inc., granting the PTAB discretion in […]
The Supreme Court will decide what standard the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) should use to construe claims during Inter Partes Review (“IPR”). Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee. The PTAB currently construes claims using the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard, rather than the “ordinary meaning” standard used in District Court litigation. In July 2015, […]
On January 5, 2016, Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware found the claim language of several patents covering Namenda XR®—Forest Laboratories, Inc.’s extended-release drug for treating Alzheimer’s-type dementia—indefinite. Forest Labs., Inc. et. al v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 14-cv-00121-LPS (D. Del. Jan. 5, 2016). Notably, the court […]