Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article about “[r]ival drugmakers Viatris and Merck . . . settl[ing] their yearslong dispute over patents on brand name diabetes treatments”;
- another article about a petition to the Supreme Court asking “the high court to review an appeals court’s decision that patents can only be issued to human inventors”; and
- a blog post about another Supreme Court petition “ask[ing] the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s ruling that Ingenio was estopped from challenging the validity of patent claims that were denied institution during inter partes review (IPR) validity proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”
Jasmin Jackson wrote an article for Law360 about “[r]ival drugmakers Viatris and Merck . . . settl[ing] their yearslong dispute over patents on brand name diabetes treatments.” Jackson reported how, “[l]ess than two months after Viatris Inc. challenged a Virginia federal judge’s determination that its planned generic diabetes drugs infringed two Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC patents on Januvia and Janumet, the companies have notified the Federal Circuit that they’ve reached a settlement amid the ongoing appeal.” Jackson explained how “Merck initially filed an infringement suit against Mylan Pharmaceuticals — since absorbed by Viatris — in May 2019, seeking to block diabetes treatment generics that would purportedly infringe patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2008 and 2013.”
Blake Brittain authored an article for Reuters about a petition to the Supreme Court asking “the high court to review an appeals court’s decision that patents can only be issued to human inventors.” Brittain reported how, in computer scientist Stephen Thaler’s brief, he claimed “AI is being used to innovate in fields ranging from medicine to energy, and that rejecting AI-generated patents ‘curtails our patent system’s ability — and thwarts Congress’s intent — to optimally stimulate innovation and technological progress.’” Brittain pointed out how Thaler’s “Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience” has been held by the Federal Circuit not to be a patent inventor because “U.S. patent law unambiguously requires inventors to be human beings.”
Steve Brachmann wrote a blog post for IPWatchdog about another Supreme Court petition “ask[ing] the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s ruling that Ingenio was estopped from challenging the validity of patent claims that were denied institution during inter partes review (IPR) validity proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” Brachmann explained how “[t]he Federal Circuit ruled that, because Ingenio did not seek a remand of its IPR petition under SAS Institute to cure the PTAB’s improper partial institution decision, the IPR estoppel provisions under Section 315(e)(2) applied.” Thus, Brachmann added, “Ingenio [was prevented] from raising invalidity arguments that ‘the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised’ during the IPR.”