Different Burdens of Proof and Different Records Allowed Different Conclusions on Validity by the PTAB and District Court

Author: Paula E. Miller  
Editor: Jeff T. Watson

In Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc., Nos. 16-1678, -1679 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions finding obvious certain patents that were previously found nonobvious in district court.

Noven filed IPR petitions relating to patents directed to a pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Although prior district court decisions found certain claims of those patents nonobvious, the PTAB held that those claims would have been obvious.  Novartis appealed, alleging that the PTAB improperly reached a different conclusion than the district court and Federal Circuit in prior litigations. Continue reading

Tagged ,

No Abuse of Discretion in Awarding Prejudgment Interest Based in Part on Patents Not Yet Issued at the Time of Hypothetical Negotiation

Author: Yoonhee Kim  
Editor: Esther H. Lim

In Comcast IP Holdings I LLC v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P., No. 2015-1992 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict that Sprint infringed patents owned by Comcast and a $7.5 million damages award with prejudgment interest.  Continue reading

Tagged ,

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – April 2017

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – February 2017

Authors: Caitlin O’Connell
Editor: Lauren J. Dreyer

Monday, April 3, 2017

Amgen v. Hospira, No. 16-2179, Courtroom 402

In the first BPCIA case after Amgen v. Sandoz, the Federal Circuit has been asked to determine whether Sandoz should be interpreted to allow discovery of manufacturing information required under 42 U.S.C. § 262 (l)(2)(A).  Amgen argues that the Court in Sandoz made it clear that the reference product sponsor can bring an infringement action and obtain the required information under § 262 (l)(2)(A) through discovery.  Hospira argues that Sandoz did not alter the relevancy and proportionality requirements of FRCP 26(b)(1), and that the information Amgen seeks is irrelevant. Continue reading