Category Archives: Obviousness

Fed. Cir. affirms PTAB IPR decision finding BTGs’s ZYTIGA® (abiratone) Orange Book ‘438 method of treatment patent invalid for obviousness

BTG Int. Ltd. and Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al. Docket Nos. 2019-1147, -1148. -1323, -1324, -1325 MOORE, WALLACH, CHEN May 14, 2019 Brief summary: PTAB IPR decision finding BTGs’s ZYTIGA® (abiratone) Orange Book ‘438 … Continue reading

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

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. et al. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Int. Ltd.

Docket No. 2018-1434 STOLL, PLAGER, CLEVENGER May 13, 2019 Brief summary: DC’s “ultimate determination that the challenged claims would not have been obvious” due to no reasonable expectation of success affirmed. Summary: WW (which filed ANDA 207486 for generic Afinitor®) … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Endo Pharm. Inc., Mallinckrodt LLC v. Actavis LLC et al.

Docket No. 2018-1054 WALLACH, CLEVENGER, STOLL May 3, 2019 Brief summary: DC holding that Endo’s claims to low “ABUK” oxymorphone were not shown to be invalid for obviousness affirmed. Summary: Actavis appealed DC holding that claims 1-6 of Endo’s US … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Endo Pharm. Inc., Mallinckrodt LLC v. Actavis LLC et al.

Docket No. 2018-1054 WALLACH, CLEVENGER, STOLL May 3, 2019 Brief summary: DC holding that Endo’s claims to low “ABUK” oxymorphone were not shown to be invalid for obviousness affirmed. Summary: Actavis appealed DC holding that claims 1-6 of Endo’s US … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Neptune Genetics, LLC et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company

Docket No. 2018-1257-8, -1288, -1290 (multiple IPRs) Moore, WALLACH, HUGHES April 26, 2019 Brief summary: Board IPR decisions finding Lilly’s claims relating to administration of vitamin B12 with pemetrexed were not shown to be obvious affirmed. Summary: Neptune Genetics (NG) … Continue reading

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

Incyte Corp. v. Concert Pharm. Inc.

IPR2017-01256 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,249,149 B2) PTAB Final Written Decision April 8, 2019 Brief summary: PTAB IPR decision found Concert’s ‘149 patent claims to a deuterated ruxolitinib relating to its CTP-543 product in development invalid for obviousness. Summary: Concert’s ‘149 … Continue reading

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

Grunenthal Gmbh et al. v. Alkem Labs. Ltd., Hikma Pharm., Actavis et al.

Docket No. 2017-1153, -2048-50 REYNA, TARANTO, CHEN March 28, 2019 Brief summary: DC decisions of nonobviousness of Grunenthal’s polymorph claims, no induced or contributory infringement due to section viii carve-out, and specific utility of the claimed polymorph affirmed. Summary: Alkem … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Contributory Infringement, Generics / ANDA, Inducement to Infringe, Inherency, Obviousness, Utility | Leave a comment