Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights a discussion of the Federal Circuit’s treatment of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions, articles about two decisions by the Federal Circuit in pharmaceutical patent cases, and a comment on the upcoming use of telephonic oral arguments.
At IPWatchdog, Brad Close discussed the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC overturning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Precedential Opinion Panel, which had “allowed [Facebook] to join a party to itself” to circumvent an Inter Partes Review deadline. According to Close, “[t]he Patent Office itself must follow the Board’s guidance until contradicted by the Federal Circuit,” but, “[b]eyond that, at the court level, the POP’s opinions are little more than an indication of how their briefs will read.”
Perry Cooper reported for Bloomberg law that “Genentech Inc. didn’t convince the Federal Circuit to revive claims in patents on its Herceptin cancer treatment that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office voided as obvious.” As explained by Cooper, in Genentech, Inc. v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit “affirmed the board’s decisions [invalidating the claims], finding that it correctly construed the terms, which aren’t clearly defined in the patent.”
Dani Kass filed an article with Law360 stating that in Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC, “[t]he Federal Circuit on Wednesday upheld a Delaware federal judge’s ruling that Amneal infringed three patents covering Galderma’s flagship rosacea drug Oracea, but said the generic-drug company didn’t infringe two others.” According to Kass, “Galderma submitted a letter saying there was a change in Amneal’s abbreviated new drug application that removed the court’s jurisdiction for some patents,” but the Federal Circuit rejected this argument.
Bill Vobach of 717 Madison Place commented on the Federal Circuit’s decision to hear many oral arguments in April over the telephone, stating that “[t]he court has rarely conducted oral arguments by telephone in the past.” Vobach provides a link to one of his previous posts including an example of a telephonic oral argument at the Federal Circuit.