Chinta & Fratangelo LLP

You think your competitor’s patent is junk? Don’t tell it to the judge

Commentary by James P. Demers On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in a patent case, Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., in which the Court held that a good faith belief that a patent...

Read More

Means-Plus-Function Software Claims Must Have an Underlying Algorithm

All claims in EON's patent were found to be invalid because means-plus-function claims describing complex computer functionality are indefinite without algorithms to provide structure to the claims. Eon Corp. IP Holding LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2014-1392 (Fed. Cir. 5/6/2015). EON owns...

Read More

Apotex Bid to Steal Mylan Exclusivity on Benicar

In this matter, Mylan is sitting on a likely 180-day exclusivity for being the first-to-file generic for Benicar®, olmesartan medoximil. Apotex has now initiated a declaratory judgment action attempting to trigger a forfeiture event for this product. If Apotex is successful, Mylan...

Read More

ATELVIA® Patents Obvious at District Court

Judge Hochberg Finds Actavis’ ATELVIA® Patents Obvious In a decision issued on March 4, 2015, Judge Faith Hochberg of the New Jersey District Court found two Warner Chilcott patents covering risedronate sodium delayed release tablets, US7645459 and US7645460, obvious in...

Read More

Entecavir Obvious?

In this Hatch-Waxman case, Bristol-Myers Squibb, owner of the drug entecavir (sold as Baraclude®, indicated for hepatitis B (HBV) infection), sued Teva Pharmaceuticals for patent infringement. Teva responded that the patent (the only patent at issue was US5206244, priority date...

Read More

Megestrol Nanoparticle Formulation Claims – Not Inherently Obvious (at least not yet)

Contact the author: Andrew Berks Case citation: Par Pharmaceutical Inc. v. TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2014-1391 (Fed. Cir. 12/3/2014) (O'Malley, Wallach, Hughes, opinion by O'Malley) In this dispute, Par is in the role of innovator drug company—they make a product called...

Read More

Means-plus-function claims – indefinite because of insufficient structure in the specification

Contact the author: Andrew Berks Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On, Inc., No. 2014-1040 (Fed. Cir. 10/14/2014). The Federal Circuit panel, (Prost, Taranto, and Hughes) outlines a two-step framework for determining if a claim invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (formerly (formerly 112 ¶ 6)....

Read More

Abbvie v. Janssen: Another nail in the coffin of functional claiming

Contact the author: Andrew Berks AbbVie Deutschland GmbH v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., No. 2013-1338 (Fed. Cir. 7/1/2014) This is a significant decision that extends the Federal Circuit’s holdings on written description from Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly Co., 598 F.3d...

Read More

Nautilus v. Biosig – The Supreme Court Clarifies the Clarity Requirement

Contact the author: Andrew Berks Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instr.. Inc., No. 13-369 (S. Ct. 6/2/2014) Opinion by Ginsburg. The definiteness requirement, 35 U.S.C. §112(b) (AIA, effective 9/12/2012; previously §112 second para.) requires that a patent  “specification shall conclude with one or...

Read More

Gilead v. Natco – Gilead’s patent invalid for obviousness-type double patenting

Contact the author: Andrew Berks Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., No. 2013-1418 (Fed. Cir. 4/22/2014) Gilead owns U.S. Patents 5,763,483 and 5,952,375, directed to antiviral compounds and their methods of use. The two patents have the same inventorship and...

Read More