Top 10 Patent Cases for the Month of April 2012

Top 10 Patent Cases for the Month of April 2012

1. Kappos v. Hyatt, No. 10-1219, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 132 S. Ct. 1690; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 3107; 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 275, January 9, 2012, Argued, April 18, 2012, Decided,  The LEXIS pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of the final published version. [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]

OVERVIEW:  35 U.S.C.S. § 145 neither imposed unique evidentiary limits in district court proceedings nor established a heightened standard of review for the PTO's factual findings, thus, vacating a summary judgment granted to the PTO on the basis of excluding a patent applicant's new evidence that had not been before the PTO was proper.

CORE TERMS:  patent, new evidence, Federal Rules, de novo, standard of review, administrative record, civil action, deferential, introduce, Patent Act ...

 

2. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, No. 10-844, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 132 S. Ct. 1670; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 3106; 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 259, December 5, 2011, Argued, April 17, 2012, Decided,  The LEXIS pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of the final published version. [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]

OVERVIEW:  Drug manufacturers' competitor was entitled to seek correction of manufacturers' use code for its method-of-use patent under 21 U.S.C.S. § 355 to permit approval of competitor's proposed generic drug which claimed other uses, since manufacturers' claim of one use did not preclude challenge and use code was patent information subject to correction.

CORE TERMS:  patent, brand, counterclaim, generic, manufacturer, generic drug, approve, label, repaglinide, listing

 

3. FTC v. Watson Pharms., Inc., No. 10-12729, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8377, April 25, 2012, Decided, April 25, 2012, Filed [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]

OVERVIEW:  Absent sham litigation or fraud in obtaining the patent, a drug company's reverse payment patent infringement settlement with generic drug manufacturers was immune from an antitrust attack pursuant to 15 U.S.C.S. § 45(a)(1) so long as its anticompetitive effects fell within the scope of the exclusionary potential of the patent.

CORE TERMS:  patent, settlement, generic, antitrust, holder, monopoly, manufacturer, exclusionary, infringement, invalid ...

 

4. Landmark Screens, LLC v. Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, LLP, 2011-1297, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8167, April 23, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]

OVERVIEW:  Applicant's claim against former counsel for fraud in improperly processing a patent application was timely filed in federal court after dismissal of a state-court action based on federal patent jurisdiction, since equitable tolling applied based on notice of the claim to counsel, lack of prejudice to counsel, and the applicant's good faith.

CORE TERMS:  divisional, patent, reissue, fraud claim, malpractice, equitable tolling, statute of limitations, invention, patent law, notice ...

 

5. USPPS, Ltd. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 2011-1525, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7728, April 17, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]

OVERVIEW:  District court correctly determined that a patent applicant's complaint alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty was untimely under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.004(a) because the injury occurred no later than the date of final notices on the patent applications and there was no basis for tolling of the limitations period.

CORE TERMS:  patent, malpractice, patent law, case law, fiduciary duty, quotation marks omitted, law claims, jurisdictional, personalized, invention ...

 

6. Dey Pharma, LP v. Sunovion Pharms., Inc., 2011-1507, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7568, April 16, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]

OVERVIEW:  Where there was subject matter jurisdiction when a new drug application filer commenced a declaratory judgment action, the case could proceed until rendered moot when the drug actually went on the market in a way that would trigger its 180 day exclusivity period, under 35 U.S.C.S. § 271(e)(5) and 21 U.S.C.S. § 355(j)(5)(C).

CORE TERMS:  patent, declaratory judgment, filer, exclusivity, generic, infringement, trigger, launch, noninfringement, certification ...

 

7. Bayer Schering Pharma AG & Bayer HealthCare Pharms., Inc. v. Lupin, Ltd., 2011-1143, 2011-1228, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7570, April 16, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]

OVERVIEW:  Case law made clear alleged infringers did not infringe patent under 35 U.S.C.S. § 271(e)(2)(A), and that their sale of generic form of drug would not induce infringement. Their Abbreviated New Drug Applications sought approval to market the generic form solely for contraceptive use, and there was no valid patent on its use for that purpose alone.

CORE TERMS:  label, patent, infringement, patient, anti-androgenic, anti-mineralocorticoid, generic, safe, clinical, labeling ...

 

8. Eurand, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc. (In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.), 2011-1399, 2011-1409, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7571, April 16, 2012, Decided, Motion denied by Eurand, Inc. v. Impax Labs., Inc. (In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.), 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8841 (Fed. Cir., Apr. 30, 2012) [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]

OVERVIEW:  District court erred when it declared patents involving a modified-release dosage form of skeletal muscle relaxants invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C.S. § 103(a) because the district court placed undue weight on bioequivalence and, as a result, misinterpreted the proffered prior art references.

CORE TERMS:  obviousness, patent, profile, skilled, invention, prior art, extended-release, artisan, cyclobenzaprine, therapeutically ...

 

9. Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 2011-1018, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7095, April 9, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]

OVERVIEW:  Patents were pharmaceutical patents related to administration of a chemotherapy cancer drug. Claim construction was reviewed de novo. District court's judgment that claim 5 of '561 patent and claim 7 of '512 patent were invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C.S. § 103, and that the patents were unenforceable for inequitable conduct, was affirmed.

CORE TERMS:  perfusion, inequitable conduct, prior art, specification, composition, ethanol, materiality, stability, patent, intent to deceive ...

 

10. Advanced Fiber Techs. Trust v. J&L Fiber Servs., 2011-1243, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6641, April 3, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]

OVERVIEW:  Patented technology in appeal involved screening devices used in the pulp and paper industry. District court's error in its interpretation of the term "perforated" was in its reliance on extrinsic evidence that contradicted patent's specification, including claims and written description. Grant of summary judgment of noninfringement was reversed.

CORE TERMS:  screening, plate, medium, perforated, opening, screen, slot, summary judgment, pulp, specification ...

....

Lexis.com subscribers can explore/search Patent Law resources on Lexis.com or access any of these Mathew Bender Patent Law publications:

Non-subscribers can purchase Patent Law treatises/resources and Mathew Bender publications from the LexisNexis Bookstore

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.