The roadmap and conservative substitution methods Amgen Inc. laid out to “enable” its genus claims for antibodies that inhibit PCSK9 to lower LDL cholesterol are “little more than two research assignments,” the U.S. Supreme Court said in a unanimous opinion handed down May 18 in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi SA that gave the win to Sanofi. The roadmap “merely describes step-by-step Amgen’s own trial-and-error method for finding functional antibodies — calling on scientists to create a wide range of candidate antibodies and then screen each to see which happen to bind to PCSK9 in the right place and block it from binding to LDL receptors,” the court said in the decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
To the chagrin of some and the joy of others, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert to Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Glaxosmithkline May 15, leaving standing a split Federal Circuit decision that could threaten the use of FDA-approved label carve-outs, or so-called skinny labels, for generics and biosimilars.
The patent wars over the design of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices seemed to disappear roughly nine years ago, but there is at least one more episode for Dublin-based Medtronic plc before the company could lay the issue to rest. A jury declared that Medtronic is liable for more than $100 million in damages over alleged infringement of a patent held by Broomfield, Colo.-based Colibri Heart Valve LLC, but the contested patent has expired, and Medtronic said it intends to pursue the matter further.
In preparing for their showdown before the U.S. Supreme Court March 27 on what it takes to enable broad genus claims, both Sanofi SA and Amgen Inc. are warning that future innovation will be at stake if the court accepts the other company’s position.
The Supreme Court has declined to hear three cases that questioned the inter partes review (IPR) process for patent litigation, although the petition for cert for the Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc.; Arthrocare Corp.; and the United States of America case is still pending. Should the Supreme Court pass on Arthrex, the remaining affected IPR cases will have to be relitigated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which may give those patent holders another chance to restore their patents.
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.
In a decision that seems to have yet again roiled the patent subject matter eligibility question, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that a district court had erred in determining the 7,941,207 patent held by Cardionet LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., is not eligible for patent protection.
