Federal Circuit Upholds Teva-GlaxoSmithKline Decision, Landing Another Blow to ‘Skinny’ Labels – On EndPointsNews, Zachary Brennan wrote about the Federal Circuit’s most recent disposition in the case GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and its impact on generic drug competition.
CAFC Again Says Teva Induced Infringement on Carvedilol, Assures Holding Narrowly Applies – Eileen McDermott also reports on GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., noting that the Federal Circuit “underscored its October 2020 ruling.”
Fed Circ Upholds VA Cutoff On Resuming Disability Benefits – Barbara Grzincic wrote an article for Reuters explaining the Federal Circuit’s decision in Buffington v. McDonough.
Is the Federal Circuit Too Trigger-Happy Invalidating Means Claims? – This question is asked by Dennis Crouch on PatentlyO, where Crouch focuses on “an interesting petition to the Supreme Court focusing on indefiniteness and means-plus-function claims.”
Federal Circuit Upholds Teva-GlaxoSmithKline Decision, Landing Another Blow to ‘Skinny’ Labels
In his article on EndPointsNews, Zachary Brennan reports on GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., stating that precedent is beginning to change with regard to “skinny” labels that are known to “[not] include all of the reference product’s indications.” Brennan notes that both Judge Prost and “experts remain concerned . . . that the ruling will have an impact on future skinny labels, which can be very important in terms of bringing new competition to market and lowering brand name drug prices.”
CAFC Again Says Teva Induced Infringement on Carvedilol, Assures Holding Narrowly Applies
On IPWatchDog, Eileen McDermott also posts on the case GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, where “Teva Pharmaceuticals, was [found] liable for induced infringement of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) patent directed to a method of treating Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) using carvedilol,” which restored “a $235 million verdict for GSK.” McDermott explains how the Federal Circuit “clarified” its ruling and indicated it “should apply only narrowly to the facts of this particular case.”
Fed Circ Upholds VA Cutoff On Resuming Disability Benefits
Barbara Grzincic explains how in Buffington v. McDonough a “divided federal appeals court” held that “[p]artially disabled veterans whose benefits are suspended when they are recalled to active duty are not automatically entitled to benefits once their tours of duty end.” Grzincic goes on to explain how “the Federal Circuit upheld a Veterans Affairs regulation under which the veteran must apply for ‘recommencement’ of benefits, with the cutoff date for any past-due benefits set at one year before the application date.” Grzincic also comments on Judge O’Malley’s dissent.
Is the Federal Circuit Too Trigger-Happy Invalidating Means Claims?
In a post on PatentlyO, Dennis Crouch comments on Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., where “Rain’s asserted claims require a ‘user identification module configured to control access of . . . software application packages.'” Crouch explains how the Federal Circuit decided “that ‘module’ [is] . . . a non-structural nonce word” and ultimately “found the claims invalid as indefinite.” Crouch comments on two questions Rain asks in the petition to the Supreme Court.