Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article highlighting how the Federal Circuit recently “vacated a decision axing a[] . . . drug patent based on an argument not presented at trial and chastised the federal judge in Delaware who issued it”;
- an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “reverse[d], in whole or in part, the PTAB only about 20% of the time” in July;
- an article explaining that in a recent opinion, the Federal Circuit “affirmed a district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss a patent infringement case . . . due to patent ineligibility” of “image tagging patents”; and
- a blog post explaining that the “Federal Circuit is set to hear oral arguments in . . . a case that could significantly impact Orange Book patent listing (and delisting) practices under the Hatch-Waxman Act.”
Michael Shapiro posted an article with Bloomberg highlighting how the Federal Circuit recently “vacated a decision axing a[] . . . drug patent based on an argument not presented at trial and chastised the federal judge in Delaware who issued it.” Shapiro recounts how the Federal Circuit in Astellas Pharma, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. did not disqualify the district judge despite his comments “that pharmaceutical companies had ‘perverted’ the intent of the laws governing drug patents, and that ‘brand and generic drug manufacturers have colluded to protect weak or invalid patents and share in the startling profits.’”
In an article for Law360, Denise De Mory and Li Guo discuss how the Federal Circuit “reverse[d], in whole or in part, the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] only about 20% of the time” in July. According to the authors, moreover, four decisions “clarified the scope of the estoppel provision . . . , identified potential issues with obtaining substitute claims comprised solely of elements of other challenged claims, clarified that a claimed result may be inherent if prior art discloses all steps of the claimed method for producing the results, and suggested that an appendix of prior art may be a viable way to expand a petition.”
Eileen McDermott authored an article for IP Watchdog explaining how in a recent opinion the Federal Circuit “affirmed a district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss a patent infringement case . . . due to patent ineligibility” of “image tagging patents.” McDermott highlights how in Angel Technologies Group, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. the Federal Circuit found that “‘collecting photos in a photo album is a patent-ineligible idea and sending information in response to an input . . . does not make the idea less abstract.'”
Dennis Crouch wrote a blog post for Patently-O explaining how the “Federal Circuit is set to hear oral arguments in . . . a case that could significantly impact Orange Book patent listing (and delisting) practices under the Hatch-Waxman Act.” Crouch suggests that in Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC , which is set to be heard in November, the critical question is “whether device patents that do not explicitly recite an active ingredient can be properly listed, potentially extending automatic market exclusivity for branded drugs.”