The Supreme Court heard the case of Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc., which takes up the question of assignor estoppel for patents, but the discussions that peppered the April 21 hearing lent little clarity as to how the nine justices will decide the case.

The FDA lost another hearing in the lawsuit filed against the agency by Genus Medical Technologies LLC in a case that yet again resurrects the product classification question. Both courts that heard the lawsuit asserted that the FDA does not enjoy unfettered discretion to classify a device as a drug merely as part of its authority under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

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.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit grappled with whether so-called patent thickets and certain global patent settlements constitute antitrust behavior as it heard arguments Feb. 25 in UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. Abbvie Inc.

The Washington Legal Foundation’s (WLF) webinar on False Claims Act (FCA) litigation highlighted several developments in case law, including that non-relator FCA cases were up significantly in fiscal year 2020. However, Jay Stephens, an attorney with Kirkland & Ellis LLP, noted that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has taken aim yet again at the materiality standard for false claims as spelled out in the Supreme Court’s Escobar, a move which if successful could amplify the federal enforcement focus on life science companies.

The case of Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was something of a nuclear option for the patent dispute at hand, as it raised a constitutional question regarding the appointment of administrative patent judges (APJ) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a consolidation of three petitions for cert arising from the Arthrex case, the outcome of which could force the reopening of a number of cases already decided by the PTAB.

The Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU) has invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, a mechanism designed to ensure the privacy of EU citizens’ data when conveyed to other nations in a manner consistent with the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Makers of drugs and devices are not without recourse in transferring patient data to the U.S. for clinical trials conducted in Europe, but industry must revisit their standard contractual clauses to ensure those protocols provide the necessary privacy provisions, or face fines that could amount to tens of millions of euros.

The case of Fitbit Inc. v. Valencell Inc. has seen the usual number of twists and turns as it wended its way through Article III courts and an inter partes review (IPR), but a U.S. Supreme Court case that requires that all claims in an IPR be reviewed was decided during the Fitbit IPR.