The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a non-precedential Rule 36 affirmance of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in In re Adhami, No. 2024-1218, 2025 WL 1949797 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2025).[1] This appeal concerned the question of when and how a single-patient study can provide sufficient
The District Court for the District of Delaware recently rejected Novartis’s effort to block MSN Pharmaceuticals from launching a generic version of Entresto® (sacubitril/valsartan), its top-selling heart failure medication. The decision, issued on July 11, 2025, potentially clears the path for generic entry before expiration of U.S. Patent No. 11,096,918 (“the ’918 patent”) on November
In a precedential ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Jazz Pharma. v. Avadel CNS Pharma., 2025 WL 1298920, — F.4th — (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2025), addressed the scope of the 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) “safe harbor” provisions for certain clinical trials and regulatory filings. Although the case
On March 13, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a five-year patent term extension (“PTE”) for Merck’s sugammadex patent, holding that the district court had correctly calculated PTE based on the issue date of the original patent rather than the issue date of the reissued patent.[1]
Background
The case
On January 29, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued paired decisions addressing Samsung Bioepis’s (“SB”) and Formycon AG’s (“Formycon”) appeals of preliminary injunctions entered in ongoing aflibercept biosimilar litigations with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Regeneron”).[1] The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over both defendants as well as the entries of preliminary
The Federal Circuit recently reversed a District of Delaware decision that invalidated claims of Novartis’s Orange Book listed patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,101,659 (the “’659 patent”), for its blockbuster drug Entresto®, a combination drug used to treat heart failure.
Following a three-day bench trial, Judge Andrews found the ’659 patent not invalid for obviousness, lack
In our previous article, we reported that the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision requiring Teva to delist certain patents related to its Teva’s ProAir® HFA metered-dose inhaler from the FDA’s Orange Book. Following a request from Teva for an en banc rehearing, the Federal Circuit stayed the delisting order on January 22
Since the America Invents Act (“AIA”) established a new venue for hearing patent disputes, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), much ink has been spilled regarding the impacts of this forum on patent litigation and the overall intellectual property strategies employed by both patentees and challengers. The Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership
On December 20, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a significant ruling in the Teva v. Amneal case following oral arguments before the Federal Circuit, which we discussed in our previous article. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that Teva’s patents were improperly listed and must be
On December 3, 2024, Bristol Myers Squibb announced a collaboration agreement with three-year-old startup AI Proteins.[1] According to its founder, Chris Bahl, PhD, AI Proteins uses “AI, synthetic biology, and laboratory automation to rapidly design and optimize novel miniproteins with ideal drug-like properties.”[2] The end goal of this collaboration is likely biologic products