The narrative that a little company has little chance of beating a big company in patent lawsuits doesn’t always play out in the real world, and such was the case in a dispute between Snyders Heart Valve LLC and St. Jude Medical. The U.S. Court of Appeals recently handed Snyders a win in the court’s reversal of an inter partes review (IPR) of a Snyders patent for heart valves, the second time in the past year Snyders prevailed over the larger company in a patent hearing at the Federal Circuit.
In a precedential opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s conclusion that Belcher Pharmaceuticals LLC’s chief science officer engaged in inequitable conduct by withholding material information from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution of Belcher’s 9,283,197 patent.
Kite Pharma Inc. is no longer on the hook for $1.2 billion in damages and royalties a jury awarded to Juno Therapeutics Inc. and the Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research in a patent infringement suit involving Kite’s CAR T therapy Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit didn’t change a thing in a trio of rulings stemming from Eli Lilly and Co.’s inter partes review challenges of several patents protecting Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.’s migraine drug, Ajovy (fremanezumab).
The Supreme Court of the U.S. delivered its decision in the case of Minerva v. Hologic, a case that tested the boundaries of the doctrine of assignor estoppel, which bars a patent's seller (assignor) from attacking the patent's validity in subsequent patent infringement litigation.
Roughly four years after Intuitive Surgical Inc. petitioned for an inter partes review for a patent owned by Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that the first 14 claims in Ethicon’s 9,585,658 patent are invalid. While the fate of two other claims are still up in the air pending remand to the PTAB, the net effect of the hearing was significantly damaging to an Ethicon patent for surgical staplers that has been in place for only four years.
In March, when a district court ruled in favor of two ANDA filers in Amarin Corp. plc’s patent litigation case regarding its fish oil cardiovascular therapy franchise, Vascepa (icosapent ethyl), CEO John Thero said an appeal was a strong possibility.
Two judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in a patent dispute between Oticon Medical and Cochlear, but the third judge, Pauline Newman took issue with the decision. Newman said the majority applied “an improper analytical technique” to determine that the preamble to a patent does not limit the related claims, despite that prior art cited to dispute the patent had been “disavowed by the preamble.”
Assignor estoppel doesn’t enjoy the glamour of subject matter eligibility in the U.S. patent system, but a case heard recently at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has resurrected this relatively arcane bit of patent doctrine. The outcome of the case of Hologic v. Minerva addressed the less-than-princely sum of roughly $5 million, but Judge Kara Stoll of the Federal Circuit said this issue calls for a deeper examination by a 12-judge panel.
