For the first time in decades, the Supreme Court will consider patent law’s “enablement” requirement, in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi. That requirement is often a key point in litigation when a patent claims a class of novel compounds or antibodies. In the oral argument on March 27, the Supreme Court…
In the long-awaited decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is unconstitutionally structured, but held that the correct remedy is more limited than the one the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had granted. Instead of…
Today, the Supreme Court denied three petitions for certiorari challenging the constitutionality of subjecting patents issued prior to the America Invents Act (“AIA”) to inter partes review (“IPR”). See Celgene v. Peter; Collabo v. Sony Corp.; Enzo v. Becton, Dickinson and Company. In all three underlying cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had…
The Supreme Court yesterday narrowed the scope of judicial review of proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP. Thryv had petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR of Click-to-Call‘s patent. Thryv’s predecessor had been sued on that patent more than one…
On January 22, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, holding that under § 102(a), as amended by the American Invents Act (“AIA”), an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential could still…
On Friday, in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., the Supreme Court held 7-2 that patentees may recover lost foreign profits based on infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2), reversing the Federal Circuit. Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, concluded that even if the presumption against extraterritoriality applied, the award of…
This morning, the United States Supreme Court issued two key decisions concerning the fundamental authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. First, in Oil State Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, the Court held in a seven to two…
Stay tuned for an in depth analysis of the arguments.
We post frequently about IPRs here on the blog, because they are an efficient and relatively quick way to get a decision on validity of the patents that cover drugs, biologic or otherwise. In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., the Supreme Court denied certiorari after the Federal Circuit affirmed that the standard…