First Petition:
Whether “the panel’s January 10, 2025 order denying Novartis’s Rule 8 motion for an injunction pending appeal as moot and lifting the administrative injunction entered on August 14, 2024, misapprehended or is contrary to the following precedent of this court.”
Second Petition:
Whether “the panel’s January 21, 2025 order . . . granting Novartis’s motion for reconsideration and ordering that MSN be enjoined from commercial marketing and sale of their generic version of Entresto® until issuance of the mandate in these appeals misapprehended or is contrary to the . . . decision[s] of the Supreme Court of the United States or the precedent(s) of this court.”
Third Petition:
“Whether, if patent claims are construed to cover (or embrace, include, encompass, etc.) later-arising technology—as Novartis argued below and the district court adopted—the patent must describe and enable such later-arising technology under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 (pre-AIA)).”
