Novartis AG lost its bid, at least for now, to delay generic competition to its blockbuster heart drug, Entresto (sacubitril, valsartan), on the basis of patent infringement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reined in a district court that invalidated three claims in an Astellas Pharma Inc. patent protecting bladder drug Myrbetriq (mirabegron) based on a issue that was never argued.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit revived the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s (PhRMA) constitutional challenge to the Medicare price negotiations, sending it back to a federal court in Texas for a do-over.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reined in a district court that invalidated three claims in an Astellas Pharma Inc. patent protecting bladder drug Myrbetriq (mirabegron) based on a issue that was never argued.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinstated patent claims covering Allergan USA Inc.'s bowel treatment drug Viberzi (eluxadoline), reversing a lower court that had invalidated the claims for not meeting obviousness-type double patenting or written description requirements. However, the appellate court said the district court “can, and should, address any other grounds of invalidity raised … at trial that are adequately supported by the record.”
Just because a statement turns out to be false doesn’t mean it was intended to be, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said in tossing a stockholder class action against Frequency Therapeutics Inc., now part of Korro Bio Inc.
Instead of inter partes review (IPR) being a streamlined alternative to costly patent litigation as intended, a precedential decision by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit could make appeals of IPR decisions, regardless of their merits, another way to delay competition.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit made it clear that it’s the court’s purview, not a jury’s, to determine whether an expert’s testimony is “relevant and reliable” when it comes to issues such as causation. It gave that lesson Feb. 13 when it affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of multi-district litigation in which the plaintiffs claimed that Onglyza (saxagliptin) and Kombiglyze (saxagliptin/metformin hydrochloride), developed by Astrazeneca plc and Bristol Myers Squibb Co., caused their heart failure.
California’s First District Court of Appeal opened an avenue, in that state at least, for lawsuits against drug and device companies based on their pipeline development priorities.
Wading into the “muddied waters” of rounding the numbers used in a range claimed in two drug patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit refused to set a “bright line rule.” Instead, it tossed a lower court win for Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. against Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and sent the case back to that court with instructions to consider the extrinsic evidence and its impact on the claim construction.
