Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
May 18, 2023
In a unanimous opinion the Court decided that the Federal Circuit’s decision was correct.<... Read more
Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
May 15, 2023
Today the Supreme Court denied cert in GSK v. Teva in which the Solicitor General filed a brief in support of granting cert. The Solicitor argued that the decision in GSK’s favor threatened the availability of lower cost generic drugs. <... Read more
Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
May 12, 2023
On April 28 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Amgen’s petition of the Federal Circuit’s decision affirming the district court’s decision on JMOL that Amgen’s antibody claims lacked an enabling disclosure. Much of the argument revolved around what was the quantum of experimentation that was too much for a claim to be enabled. At the end of Sanofi’s argument its counsel cited the Morse case where the Supreme Court invalidated Morse claim 8 which defined the transmission of symbols in solely functional terms:<... Read more
Attorney:
Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
February 22, 2023
CareDx is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patents 8,703,652, 9,845,497, and 10,329,607 entitled “Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Graft Rejection in Organ Transplant Patients” owned by Stanford. The patents describe diagnosing or predicting organ transplant status by using methods to detect a donor’s cell-free DNA (“cfDNA”). When an organ transplant is rejected, the recipient’s body, through its natural immune response, destroys the donor cells, thus releasing cfDNA from the donated organ’s dying cells into the blood. The increased levels of donor cfDNA, which occur naturally as the organ’s condition deteriorates, can be detected and used to diagnose the likelihood of an organ transplant rejection. Claim 1 of the ’652 patent reads (simplified):<... Read more
Attorney:
Grace Kim
December 13, 2022
Update by Grace Kim and Sara Pistilli, PharmD.
On December 6, 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) overturned a rejection of a claim to a plant extract based on patent ineligible subject matter (Appeal 2022-001062). Claim 1 of the application US 15/521,212 (the 212 Application) is directed towards:<... Read more
Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
October 5, 2022
The Supreme has relisted the petition for certiorari in Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., 21-1566 where Juno petitioned for review of the Federal Circuit’s decision reported at 10 F.4th 1330 (2021) reversing the decision of the lower court finding U.S.P. 7,446,190 to not be invalid for lack of written description or enablement and awarding damages of over $1.2 billion. While the relisting of a certiorari petition does not guarantee cert will be granted, statically since 2016 between about 30 and 40% of relisted petitions have been granted. The SCOTUS blog has detailed analysis here. Considering that the overall grant rate for petitions is only about 4% this indicates that the Juno petition has a much greater than normal possibility of being granted.<... Read more
Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
October 3, 2022
Just two days after the Federal Circuit denied a stay of its mandate in Novartis v. HEC Pharm Co., Ltd., the Supreme Court granted a stay of the mandate pending a further order of the Court and requiring HEC to file a response to the Novartis stay request.<... Read more
Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
August 18, 2022
On August 11, 2022, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the remand of Hologic, Inc. v Minerva Surgical, Inc. from the Supreme Court’s decision limiting the application of assignor estoppel to where the assignor is taking in litigation a position inconsistent with his prior representations in assigning the patent. In this case the issue was whether the issued claims are materially broader than the claims in the assigned application, Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 2298, 2302, 2309 (2021). The Supreme Court in Minerva refused to discard the concept of assignor estoppel but instead held that the concept comes with limits and “reaches only as far as the equitable principle long understood to lie at its core.” The Supreme Court held that assignor estoppel “applies only when an inventor says one thing (explicitly or implicitly) in assigning a patent and the opposite in litigating against the patent’s owner.” Id. at 2304. Stated differently, where the assignor has not any explicit or implicit representations which conflict with an invalidity defense.<... Read more
August 16, 2022
In my first post about Pavo Solutions v. Kingston Technology a few weeks ago, I noted that the Federal Circuit rewrote claim language in the asserted patent by changing the claim element "for pivoting" from case to cover. The claim element in question read as follows:<... Read more
Attorney:
Richard D. Kelly
July 5, 2022
On the last day of June to the dismay of many, the Supreme Court denied cert in yet another Federal Circuit patent eligibility decision, American Axle. Many had been hopeful of a grant because the Court had requested the Solicitor General’s view on the petition. In May the SG provided comments favoring granting cert. A dispassionate viewer would probably not have been surprised by the denial since it’s not apparent how any new decision by the Supreme Court could result in consistency from the Federal Circuit. As Judge Albright noted in deciding Health Discovery Corp. v. Intel Corporation, 6:20-cv-666ADA (WD TX December 27, 2021), he found it difficult to extract a unified theory of Alice’s two steps from the Federal Circuit’s § jurisprudence. The function of a circuit court is to take a Supreme Court decision and derive theory of how one is to apply it. While different circuit court’s may arrive at different conclusions as to how a decision is to be applied, it is rare for a circuit court to be unable to be consistent in its application of the law as announced by the Supreme Court. Yet this is the position of the Federal Circuit. A situation hardly conducive to “furthering the progress of the useful arts.”<... Read more