TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., v. CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS, INC.

Before Moore, Newman, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Limitations, such as specific drug doses, in claim language can impact the application of the reasonable expectation of success analysis for obviousness.

ASTRAZENECA AB v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

Before: Taranto, Hughes, and Stoll

Summary: For purposes of claim construction, intrinsic evidence can trump the plain and ordinary meaning of scientific conventions such as significant figures.

Johnson & Johnson announced on November 12, 2021, that it is planning to separate its Consumer Health Business and create a new publicly traded Consumer Health Company. The press release states that the planned separation is expected to provide enhanced operational performance, drive growth, and unlock significant value.

BIOGEN INTERNATIONAL GMBH V. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

Summary: A specification may not describe “possession” of an invention in satisfaction of the § 112 written description requirement even though the specification lists dosage ranges encompassing the claimed limitation.

MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION

Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Sublicensee’s theory of royalty-based injury was too speculative to support standing on appeal. Later changes in factual basis cannot support standing where the original basis for standing is not shown to be continuous.

MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION

Before Lourie, O’Malley and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: A presumption of obviousness based on overlapping ranges requires showing that the overlapping range is actually taught by the prior art.

INDIVIOR UK LIMITED v. DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES S.A.

Before Lourie, Linn, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Claims of a continuation application were anticipated because they were not entitled to the filing date of a parent application that failed to support the ranges of numerical values claimed in the continuation.

ROHM SEMICONDUCTOR USA, LLC v. MAXPOWER SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.

Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Chen. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Summary: An arbitration agreement, which incorporated the California Code of Civil Procedure by reference, delegated determining arbitrability and supported dismissal of a district court action.

GALPERTI, INC. v. GALPERTI S.R.L.

Before: Moore, Prost, Taranto. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Evidence of use of a term even without a showing of secondary meaning, by any third party, is relevant to demonstrate that an assertion of substantially exclusive use was false.

APPLE, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC.

Before Newman, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Apple lacked standing to appeal an IPR decision upholding patents that Apple licenses from Qualcomm, in light of a prior decision with identical operative facts