|
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (No. 2017-1575, 10/12/18) (Reyna, Bryson, Stoll) Reyna, J. Affirming district court’s judgment that four dosing patents directed to treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis were obvious. Claim term reciting doses “sufficient” to achieve treatment were non-limiting. Dosing regimen was obvious where a POSITA would have had only a limited number of permutations of dose and frequency to explore that were not already disclosed in the prior art. A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
|
Yeda Research and Development v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (No. 2017-1594, -1595, -1596, 10/12/18) (Reyna, Bryson, Stoll) Reyna, J. In companion case to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC v. SANDOZ INC. [OPINION], affirming PTAB opinion that three of the same patents were obvious. A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
|
Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC (No. 2017-1135, 10/9/18) (Reyna, Bryson, Stoll) Stoll, J. Affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part and holding that some claims were directed to patent eligible subject matter and some were not based on whether they were directed to an “abstract idea.” The patents generally claimed systems and methods for making complex spreadsheets more accessible. A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
|
Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid (No. 2017-1690, 10/9/18) (O'Malley, Reyna, Hughes) Reyna, J. Affirming summary judgment that patent directed to detecting pathogenic bacterium was invalid for claiming patent ineligible subject matter. Claims directed to primers were invalid because they were indistinguishable from naturally occurring DNA. Method claims that included a detecting step were also unpatentable as directed to a natural phenomenon. O’Malley, J. concurred that case was controlled by BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation, 774 F.3d 755, 758 (Fed. Cir. 2014) but would revisit the holding of the BRCA2 case, at least with respect to the primer claims. A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
|
Natural Alternatives v. Iancu (No. 2017-1962, 10/1/18) (Prost, Moore, Reyna) Prost, C.J. Affirming a PTAB inter partes reexamination decision rejecting patent claims as anticipated or obvious over the cited prior art, including a parent of the reexamined patent. The only issue on appeal was whether the reexamined patent was entitled to the priority date of one of the applicant’s earlier applications. The Court held that the reexamined patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date because during prosecution the applicant had deleted its claim to the priority date of the earlier application. A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |