The Federal Circuit recently held[1] in a 2-1 decision that there was substantial evidence supporting a jury finding that Teva was liable for induced infringement for an indication carved out of its skinny label for its generic version of carvedilol.
The case concerned GSK’s United States Patent No. 4,503,067 (“the ’067 patent”) and Reissue
Last week, the Federal Circuit denied Sandoz’s petition for an en banc rehearing of its precedential July 1st panel decision upholding two of Immunex’s patents covering Enbrel®.
As explained in the petition, Immunex was the first to make etanercept, the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor fusion protein that is the active ingredient in Enbrel® (used
We have previously covered various aspects of a legal battle between Genentech and Amgen regarding Amgen’s efforts to market Mvasi, a biosimilar to Genentech’s bevacizumab product, Avastin. These aspects include Genentech’s quickly-dismissed February 2017 action contending Amgen was in violation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) (covered here and here), and
Recently, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Pfizer Inc.’s (“Pfizer”) appeal for lack of Article III standing. Pfizer had filed an inter partes review (“IPR”) against Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. (“Chugai”) arguing that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,332,289 and 7,927,815 (“the patents-at-issue”) were unpatentable. The patents at issue are directed towards methods of manufacturing rituximab. Specifically,
On January 15, 2020, Hospira filed a petition for rehearing en banc asking the full Federal Circuit to reconsider a prior panel’s analysis of the Safe Harbor provision and reverse the finding of infringement. In December 2019, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Delaware’s decision denying Hospira’s motion for judgment as a matter of
For decades, courts have construed the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” to mean that the scope of a claim is limited to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA
As we previously reported, earlier this year the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding that Sandoz’s ZARXIO filgrastim biosimilar and proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar do not infringe Amgen’s patents. The patents-at-issue were Amgen’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,940,878 (“the ’878 patent”) and 6,162,427 (“the ’427 patent”). The ’872 patent is directed towards methods of purifying
In a recent precedential opinion[1], the Federal Circuit rejected arguments by Amgen that a single step purification process used by Sandoz for its G-CSF biosimilar infringed claims of Amgen’s patent describing a multistep purification procedure for proteins expressed in a non-mammalian system.
In this case, the Federal Circuit explained that the doctrine of
On May 20, 2019, the PTAB denied a request for rehearing in Apotex Inc. v. Amgen Inc., Case IPR2016-01542 (Paper 67), but modified its Final Written Decision. In the Final Written Decision, the PTAB found claims 1-17 and 19-24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,952,138 (“the ’138 patent”) unpatentable. The ’138 patent is directed towards
Recently, in Adello Biologics LLC v. Amgen Inc., Case PGR2019-00001 (Paper No. 13) (PTAB Apr. 19, 2019), the PTAB instituted post-grant review of claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,856,287 (“the ’287 patent”). The ’287 patent is the patent at issue in a pending litigation between Amgen and Apotex under the Biologics Price Competition