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.
If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. vs. Glaxosmithkline LLC, it could be one of the biggest biopharma cases on the court’s calendar in the coming year. But that’s still an if. Whether the patent infringement case involving a so-called “skinny label” makes it to the high court’s docket depends on which interpretation of the underlying question the court accepts.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck a blow Nov. 30 to Biogen Inc.’s blockbuster multiple sclerosis (MS) drug, Tecfidera, affirming a lower court’s determination that a patent claiming a method of treating MS was invalid for lack of written description. In two other precedential cases the next day, the appellate court opened the door for Arbutus Biopharma Corp. to seek royalties on Moderna Inc.’s COVID-19 vaccine.
More than a decade after the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act became law and nearly six years after the first biosimilar launched in the U.S., the country’s first potential interchangeable is on deck awaiting an FDA decision.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit narrowed the landscape for filing Hatch-Waxman infringement suits against U.S.-based companies, as it answered yet another question raised by the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, which dramatically changed venue parameters in 2017 for all patent infringement cases.
