Claim Construction Sends Duke’s Patent Back to PTAB for Reconsideration, In Part In a recent appeal from a PTAB final written decision, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s determination that all claims of a Duke patent were unpatentable (Duke Univ. v. BioMarin Pharm. Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1106 (Fed. Cir., April 25, 2017). The court concluded that certain of the Board’s claim constructions were incorrect, and that others, while appropriate,...… Continue Reading
Purdue Not Estopped From Raising Invalidity Contentions at Trial That Were Submitted But Not Instituted During IPR Recently, the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey allowed Purdue Pharma to assert invalidity arguments in the litigation that were previously submitted in an IPR petition, but upon which IPR review was not instituted. See Depomed Inc. v Purdue Pharma LP, Civil Action 13-571, Order (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2016). The Court rejected … Continue Reading
PTAB Denies Institution of 3 IPRS Against Biogen’s TYSABRI® (natalizumab) On October 17, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of three IPRs [IPR2016-00912, IPR2016-00915, and IPR2016-00916] petitioned by Swiss Pharma AG against three patents owned by Biogen IDEC directed to its anti-α4 integrin antibody product, TYSABRI (natalizumab), marketed to treat multiple sclerosis and Crohn’s disease. The PTAB weighed the Petitioner’s assertions of routine experimentation against the … Continue Reading
3 Is a Magic Number for Mylan: 3 Teva Copaxone Patents Struck Down in IPRs In a series of unfortunate events for Teva Pharmaceuticals, three patents covering methods for administering the blockbuster multiple sclerosis (MS) drug Copaxone® (glatiramer acetate) (owned by Yeda Research and Development Co.) were struck down by the PTAB in recent IPR decisions (IPR2015-00830, IPR2015-00643, and IPR2015-00644).  These patents are directed to methods for administering Copaxone in … Continue Reading
The Three-Front Assault: PeroxyChem Uses IPR, PGR and District Court to Challenge Opponent In what could become a common patent challenge strategy, PeroxyChem, a chemical company that sells products useful in water and soil remediation, has employed a three-front assault—combining the relatively young post-grant review procedure, with an IPR and litigation–to take on one of its competitors, Innovative Environmental Technologies (IET).  Litigation together with an IPR has become … Continue Reading
In a recent appeal from a PTAB final written decision, the Federal Circuit determined that a patentee was not denied notice or an opportunity to respond to references cited in the final written decision as representing the state of the art,  but that were not the basis for a grounds for institution.  (Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. … Continue Reading
Patent Ineligibility Under §101 Continues Slow Ooze Over More Territory Biotech companies have increasingly found themselves the target of IPRs, and we have discussed this in some of our past posts.  Meanwhile, in the District Courts, biotech companies are defending against a new wave of challenges to the patent-eligibility of their inventions under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  While challenges under § 101 cannot be raised as grounds … Continue Reading
Another “Reasonable” Re-Interpretation by the Federal Circuit In a recent decision appealing the PTAB’s finding of claims unpatentable in two different, but related re-examination proceedings, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Board’s decisions based on reinterpretation of claim terms construed under the PTAB’s broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard during the re-examination process (In re Varma, Appeal 2015-1502 and 2015-1667, Fed. Circ., … Continue Reading
Cross-Pollination of Information From Litigation to IPR Can Lead to Trouble for Parties In a recent order by the magistrate judge in Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC (NJD, Jan. 22, 2016), defendants Amneal Pharmaceuticals and Par Pharmaceuticals were reprimanded and threatened with sanctions and monetary fines for trying to use confidential information from the litigation to move for additional discovery in a related IPR proceedings.  The judge … Continue Reading