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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit once again delved into genus claims as it affirmed Gilead Sciences Inc.’s win in its inter partes review (IPR) challenge of several claims in a patent held by the University of Minnesota.
While the FDA has yet to take a stance on whether risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) patents can be listed in its Orange Book, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit weighed in Feb. 24 with a decisive “no” when those patents only claim a system.
It’s taken eight years of jury trials, court reversals and appeals for Amgen Inc. to get the nod to argue its case before the U.S. Supreme Court on what is needed to meet the enablement standard for functional patent claims that envelop a genus.
It pays to read the details of patent specifications. By keeping the pH range of its generic vasopressin injection at least 0.01 below that specified for Vasostrict, Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc. cleared itself from claims that it had infringed two key patents protecting the brand drug.
The doctrine of patent assignor estoppel is not found in the U.S. statute, but that omission has led to only limited litigation over the doctrine despite the notoriety of the case of Hologic v. Minerva. Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit reinforced the understanding that an assigned patent is still in force when the disputed claim is not seen has having been materially broadened by the time a patent has been granted in its final form, thus closing one of the principal contractual questions surrounding patents that are handed off from one device maker to another.
Med tech patents have been especially vulnerable to litigation in recent years, and a new decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirms yet again the vulnerability of patents undergoing litigation. The Federal Circuit said nine claims found in two patents held by Becon Medical Ltd., of Batavia, Ill., were invalid due to obviousness, presenting the company a significant loss in its infringement litigation with Talexmedical LLC, of Malvern, Pa.
The effects of U.S. Supreme Court case law on patents are well demonstrated, but the latest victims of patent jurisprudence are directed toward a critical need for desperately ill patients. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that several claims found in three patents licensed to Caredx Inc., of Brisbane, Calif., are ineligible due to a purported lack of inventiveness under Section 101 of the Patent Act, an outcome that sustains what some believe is a trend in case law that is hostile toward diagnostic patents in the U.S.
