MEDTRONIC, INC. v. TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L.
Before Moore, Lourie, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Summary: Federal Circuit confirms low bar for evidence corroborating prior inventorship pre-AIA.
As predictions of an economic recession in the United States loom, 2023 has started with extensive layoffs throughout the tech industry. Though not to an equal degree, the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and life science industries have not been excluded from employment cuts. In January, Verily, the healthcare and life sciences subsidiary of Alphabet, Inc., announced a restructuring that would cut about 15% of its workforce. [1] Likewise, several other biotech giants, including Thermo Fisher Scientific and Grifols, have disclosed plans to decrease workforce in the coming quarters. [2]
DuPont announced on May 2, 2023 its acquisition of Spectrum Plastics Group (“Spectrum”), a specialty plastics manufacturer, from the private equity firm AEA Investors for $1.75 billion.
On April 26, 2023, the European Commission proposed a pharmaceutical law reform directed to replacing the existing pharmaceutical legislation. The reform aims to increase innovation and competition in the pharmaceutical industry, while reducing the cost of drugs for consumers.
SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH V. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
Before Reyna, Mayer, and Cunningham. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: When arguing that a reference is analogous prior art, a petitioner must show that the reference is analogous to the challenged patent, and not other prior art references.
BOT M8 LLC v. SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC
Before Prost, Reyna, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A party challenging the Board’s decision by alleging claim construction errors must demonstrate the harmfulness of the alleged errors for the Board’s decision to be reversed.
UNITED CANNABIS CORPORATION V. PURE HEMP COLLECTIVE INC.
Before Lourie, Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
Summary: The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s refusal to award attorneys’ fees based on alleged inequitable conduct where the party seeking fees had stipulated to the dismissal of its inequitable-conduct counterclaim.
On April 26, 2023, Security Defense Systems, LLC sued Athenahealth, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. The lawsuit alleges that Athenahealth’s Epocrates application and epocrates.com website infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,155,887, titled “Computer Visualized Drug Interaction Information Retrieval,” which issued in 2012.
HIP, INC v. HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION
Before Lourie, Clevenger, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: To prove a claim of joint inventorship, an party must prove that the individual contributed in a significant manner, that the claimed contribution was not insignificant in quality when measured against the full invention, and that the individual did more than explain known concepts.
UCB, INC. v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.
Before Moore, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: District court legally erred by applying incorrect anticipation framework but correctly found that patent claiming a ratio range was obvious over prior art disclosing overlapping range.
