Category Archives: Method claims

DC obviousness and procedural ANDA-related decisions affirmed

Posted on April 23, 2024 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Salix Pharm., Ltd. et al. v. Norwich Pharm. Inc. Docket No. 2022-2153, -1952 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2153.OPINION.4-11-2024_2300049.pdf) LOURIE, CHEN, CUNNINGHAM April 11, 2024 Brief Summary:  DC obviousness of method of treatment and polymorph patents and ANDA-related (FDA cannot approve current ANDA, correctly denied … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Method claims, Obviousness | Leave a comment

DC analysis improper to support finding Teva did not show obviousness of Janssen’s schizophrenia drug OB claims

Posted on April 3, 2024 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Mylan Labs. Ltd. Docket No. 2022-1258, -1307 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1258.OPINION.4-1-2024_2293991.pdf) DYK, PROST, HUGHES April 1, 2024 Brief Summary:  DC obviousness decision vacated and remanded; no indefiniteness finding affirmed. Summary:   Teva appealed DC … Continue reading →

Posted in Indefiniteness, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations) | Leave a comment

DC finding of no WD of enzyme genus and unpatentability under 101 affirmed (naturally occurring, “50% complete” an abstract idea)

Posted on January 9, 2024 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

PureCircle USA Inc. et al. v. Sweegen, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2022-1946 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1946.OPINION.1-2-2024_2246968.pdf) (Non-precedential) DYK, SCHALL, STARK January 2, 2024 Brief Summary:  DC finding of no WD of genus of enzymes used in method and claim to specific enzyme … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Method claims, Patent Eligibility (101), Section 101 (see also Patentability), Written description | Leave a comment

Pre-AIA constructive reduction to practice rendered alleged prior art ineffective, Board IPR decision of no obviousness affirmed

Posted on December 12, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Medtronic, Inc. et al. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Limited Docket No. 2022-1721, -1722 (IPR2020-01343, -01344 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1721.OPINION.11-16-2023_2223230.pdf) LOURIE, PROST, CHEN November 16, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board finding of no obviousness affirmed based on pre-AIA constructive reduction to practice. Summary:  Medtronic … Continue reading →

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Method claims, Obviousness | Leave a comment

DC findings that Vanda’s method of treatment claims are invalid for obviousness affirmed

Posted on May 16, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Apotex, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2023-1247 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1247.OPINION.5-10-2023_2124577.pdf) (Non-Precedential) DYK, BRYSON, PROST May 10, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC obviousness findings regarding Vanda’s method of treatment claims affirmed. Summary:  Teva and … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Obviousness-Teaching Away | Leave a comment

FC panel affirms DC finding that Amgen’s Otezla® composition patents are not invalid, but also that method of treatment claims are invalid, for obviousness

Posted on April 21, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. et al. Docket No. 2020-1147, 1149-51 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1147.OPINION.4-19-2023_2113208.pdf) LOURIE, CUNNINGHAM, STARK April 19, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC finding that two of Amgen’s Otezla® composition patents not invalid for obviousness affirmed.  DC finding that another of … Continue reading →

Posted in Enablement, Generics / ANDA, Inherency, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Obviousness-Teaching Away, Priority, Written description | Leave a comment

DC order for Jazz to delist “computer-implemented system” claims from Orange Book affirmed

Posted on March 2, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC Docket No. 2023-1186 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1186.OPINION.2-24-2023_2085825.pdf) LOURIE, REYNA, TARANTO February 24, 2023 Brief Summary:   DC order for Jazz to delist “computer-implemented system” claims from OB affirmed. Summary:  Jazz appealed DC grant of an … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Injunction, Method claims | Leave a comment

FC panel affirms DC obviousness and non-infringement findings regarding Genentech’s Esbriet® patents

Posted on January 13, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Genentech, Inc., Intermune, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., LEK Pharmaceuticals, D.D. Docket No. 2022-1595 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1595.OPINION.12-22-2022_2052253.pdf) NEWMAN, LOURIE, PROST December 22, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC findings that Genetech’s disputed Esbriet® patents are invalid for obviousness and not infringed by Sandoz’s ANDA … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations) | Leave a comment

DC decision of infringement and no invalidity of Pharmacyclic’s BTK inhibitor-related patents affirmed

Posted on November 29, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Pharmacyclics LLC, Jannsen Biotech, Inc. v. Alvogen, Inc., Natco Pharma Limited Docket No. 2021-2270 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2270.OPINION.11-15-2022_2033497.pdf) (Non-Precedential) CHEN, BRYSON, HUGHES November 15, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC decisions that Pharmacyclic’s patents were infringed and not invalid for lack of written description, … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Double Patenting, Enablement, Generics / ANDA, Incorporation by Reference, Infringement, Method claims, Obviousness, Obviousness (Secondary Considerations), Priority, Public Accessibility, Written description | Leave a comment

Board IPR decision finding MSFT did not show Uniloc’s claims obvious vacated and remanded

Posted on November 1, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC Docket No. 2021-2039 (IPR2020-00023) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2039.OPINION.10-20-2022_2021742.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, DYK, HUGHES October 20, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board decision finding claims not obvious vacated and remanded for lack of substantial evidence (contradictory conclusions, claimed steps do … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Method claims, Obviousness, Software | Leave a comment