Sequenom, Inc. has filed a petition for rehearing en banc of the Federal Circuit decision that held its diagnostic method claims invalid under 35 USC § 101. (You can read my synopsis of that decision here). Stakeholders in the diagnostic and personalized medicine space will be watching to see if the court grants the petition and reaches a different decision on the merits. Continue reading this entry
In Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision that upheld the validity of the Allergan patents relating to Lumigan® 0.01% glaucoma eye drops against obviousness, written description, and enablement challenges. I previously wrote about the obviousness analysis. Here, I look at the court’s discussion of the written description and enablement issues, and note its citation of prophetic examples.
In Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision that upheld the validity of the Allergan patents relating to Lumigan® 0.01% glaucoma eye drops. This decision shows that it is still possible to defend a patent to a pharmaceutical formulation, at least when it is associated with truly unexpected results. Continue reading this entry
If you are reading this, then you probably rely on PharmaPatents for timely insight on emerging legal developments impacting patent rights in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and chemical fields. I would really appreciate it if you would show your support by nominating PharmaPatentsfor the ABA Journal’s Blawg 100.
The nomination form has nine fields, and I can give you “answers” for two of them:
The url of PharmaPatentsBlog is:
The url for a direct link to a recent post is:
(I’ll let you come up with your own reasons why you are a fan.)
Voting ends August 16th, so please vote now.
I don’t usually write about district court decisions, but the patent indefiniteness ruling in Andrulis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Celgene Corp. (D. Del., July 26, 2015), caught my attention. The court held the asserted claim indefinite based on the term “enhanced,” not because it was a qualitative term, but because “it could mean less than additive, additive, or greater than additive.” Did the Applicant’s cautious language during prosecution lead to the court’s finding? Continue reading this entry