Real life economics, not functionality, is the standard for determining a relevant antitrust market for distinct versions of a prescription drug, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said as it schooled a lower court and handed Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. a win in its ongoing litigation with Novartis AG and Vetter Pharma International GmbH over the prefilled syringe market for eye drugs Eylea (aflibercept) and Lucentis (ranibizumab).

How long does it take for a U.S.-based biopharma company to complete a bankruptcy? In the case of privately held Purdue Pharma LP, the answer is likely five years or longer, depending on when the Supreme Court rules on the matter and whether it orders a do-over. The Supreme Court is the next chapter in the court saga that began in 2019 when the Stamford, Conn.-based company filed for bankruptcy in its first step toward reorganizing as a public benefit company.

Much of U.S. patent law jurisprudence still revolves around subject matter eligibility, but a new decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revisits the question of what constitutes obviousness in patent applications. The court remanded the case between Irvine, Calif.-based Axonics Inc. and Dublin-based Medtronic plc to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) after determining that the PTAB judge’s understanding of obviousness is “doubly infected by error” in a decision that seems to offer some much-needed clarity where obviousness is concerned.

An administrative law judge has decreed that the acquisition of Grail Inc., by Illumina Inc., would not represent a suppression of competition in the market for multicancer early detection (MCED) tests, clearing a way for an acquisition that was initially valued at more than $7 billion.

The question of whether an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm should enjoy the status of an inventor has been making the rounds in various nations, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has rejected the notion based on a plain reading of the statute. The court said that the statute is unambiguous in that only natural persons can claim inventorship, but the question will be appealed to the Supreme Court, which will have an opportunity to put this debate to rest.

Patent litigation is notoriously drawn out in some instances, as is the case with disputes between Boston Scientific Corp. (BSX), of Natick, Mass., and Nevro Corp., of Redwood City, Calif. However, the two announced Aug. 1 that they have come to terms over several lawsuits, with each enjoying the right to practice some of the disputed patents and Nevro taking in a net payment of $85 million.

Illumina Inc., of San Diego, is struggling to complete the regulatory side of its acquisition of Grail Inc., of Menlo Park, Calif., thanks in part to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s (FTCs) ongoing review of the transaction. However, Illumina is also facing stiff winds in Europe where the General Court of the European Union rejected the company’s bid to push the deal through despite the opposition of the European Commission (EC).

Patent subject matter eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act has proven controversial for patents in the U.S. thanks in no small part to Supreme Court jurisprudence in cases such as Alice v. CLS Bank and Mayo v. Prometheus. In the latest development, the Court has declined to hear the American Axle case, which some see as presenting an exceptionally low bar for subject matter eligibility, leaving many observers despairing of any chance of restoring a decent patent system for makers of in vitro diagnostics and other items that are among the mainstays of the medical device industry.

Davita Inc., lost a U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding limits to the private payer coverage for outpatient dialysis services despite, a development that took a double-digit bite out of Davita’s shares. However, shares of competitor Fresenius also took a hit, suggesting that the market sees the decision as a major setback for both companies.