PTAB Reverses Examiners on Unexpected Results

Attorney: Derek Lightner, Ph.D.
June 11, 2024

In Ex parte Freeman (USSN 16/270,259; TC 1600; Appeal 2023-000512, the underlying application being referred to herein as the “Freeman application”), a finding of obviousness and obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) was reversed on May 24, 2024. Freeman’s application was examined by Devang Thakor initially, but the case was taken over by another primary examiner, Nicole Babson, whose position was supported by Supervisor Patent Examiners, David Blanchard and Bethany Barham.<... Read more

IOEngine v. Ingenico: Printed Matter Doctrine and Forfeiture of Claim Construction

Attorney: Xiaohua (Joyce) Guo, Ph.D.
May 30, 2024

In a precedential decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit partially reversed and partially affirmed the Final Written Decisions made by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“Board”) during a series of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.<... Read more

Anything You (are Required to) Say May be Used Against You (as Prior Art): Federal Circuit Upholds Invalidity Based on Mandatory Publication of Clinical Trial Protocol

Attorney: Nicholas Rosa, Ph.D.
May 16, 2024

Clinical trials are a critical part of the development and approval process for drugs, biologics, and medical devices. The lengthy and public nature of clinical trials, however, can create challenges for protecting relevant IP.  A clinical trial is a study or investigation in humans to “evaluate the effect(s) of intervention(s) on biomedical or health-related outcomes.”  42 C.F.R. 11.  Interventions can take many forms that benefit from patent protection including drugs/small molecules/compounds; biologics; devices; procedures (e.g., surgical techniques); treatment strategies; prevention strategies; and diagnostic strategies. Id. <... Read more

Federal Circuit Upholds PTAB Finding of Patentability in Medtronic v. Teleflex Life Sciences

Attorney: Jenna Logsdon, Ph.D.
April 1, 2024

In Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd. the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413 (“the ’413 patent”), owned by Teleflex, was not shown to be unpatentable over the asserted prior art. This post will focus on how the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s claim interpretation to find ’413 patent claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7–14 non-obvious.<... Read more

Federal Circuit Upholds PTAB Finding of Obviousness in Pfizer vs. Sanofi

Attorney: Cristina Lai
March 18, 2024

In Pfizer Inc. vs. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision to invalidate portions of Pfizer’s pneumococcal vaccine patent on the grounds of obviousness. My colleague’s post discusses the Federal Circuit’s decision to vacate and remand to the PTAB to further consider Pfizer’s motions to amend with regards to proposed claims 48 and 49, holding that the PTAB has not actually addressed the additional limitations for these claims. This post will focus on the patentability of Claims 1-45, and specifically how the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s application of the result-effective variable doctrine and reasonable expectation of success in order to arrive at a finding of obviousness of Claims 1-45 of U.S. Patent No. 9,492,599 (“the ‘559 patent”).<... Read more

Federal Circuit Remands to PTAB to Further Consider Pfizer's Motion to Amend Claims

Attorney: Long Phan
March 13, 2024

In a recent ruling regarding Pfizer's pneumococcal vaccine patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,492,559), the Federal Circuit upheld most of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision to invalidate portions of Pfizer's ‘559 patent as obvious. The PTAB’s invalidation of the ‘559 patent occurred over five IPRs by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Sanofi Pasteur Inc. and SK Chemicals Co.<... Read more

Written Description of a Numerical Range

Attorney: Richard D. Kelly
February 14, 2024

The Federal Circuit on February 9 decided another written description case involving a range not found in ipsis verbis in the patent specification in RAI Strategic Holdings Inc. v. Philip Morris Products S.A. RAI appealed from a PTAB holding in PGR2020-00071 that claims 10 and 27 of U.S.P. 10,492,542 lacked written description in the specification. Claims 27 is reproduced below; claim 10 is identical except it depends on claim 9:<... Read more

When does a drug label induce infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) of a patent not claiming an indication or method of use?

Attorney: Richard D. Kelly
January 23, 2024

In Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., C.A. 18-03632, December 29, 2023, the Chief Judge Bumb of the New Jersey District Court wrestled with the question of infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2) where the drug labels of the generic and ethical drug were identical in the relevant parts.<... Read more

Invalidity of a Patent Claiming Antibodies Characterized by Their Function In View of Amgen

Attorney: Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
January 12, 2024

Baxalta Inc. and Baxalta GmbH (Baxalta) appealed a district court decision that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,033,590 were invalid for lack of enablement. The Federal Circuit (the Court) affirmed the decision.<... Read more

USPTO Releases Examiner Guidance for The Amgen Enablement Decision

Attorney: Richard D. Kelly
January 10, 2024

The USPTO today published its guidance to the examiners on the impact of the Amgen v. Sanofi,143 S. Ct. 1243 (2023), on USPTO practice. The Guidance is basically steady as she goes but with the caveat that the enablement requirement and the Wands factors (In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988)) apply across all technologies, noting the Court’s reliance on cases involving the telegraph, incandescent lamp filaments and wood glue.  The Guidance also noted that the post-Amgen Federal Circuit decisions had reaffirmed the continued validity of the Wands factors as consistent with Amgen, citingMedytox, 71 F.4th at 998- 999, Baxalta Inc, v. Genentech, Inc., 81 F.4th 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2023), and In re Starrett, 2023 WL 3881360 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (non-precedential).<... Read more