| 24-1132 |
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2025-05-02 |
Denied |
|
federal-circuit non-obviousness obviousness patent-law pharmaceutical-innovation secondary-considerations |
Whether, as this Court has held, the objective indicia of non-obviousness should be analyzed flexibly to combat hindsight bias or instead subject to t… |
| 23-768 |
Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2024-01-17 |
Denied |
Amici (3)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) |
federal-circuit innovation-standard ksr-international-co-v-teleflex KSR-precedent obviousness obviousness-standard patent patent-law predictable-results reasonable-expectation-of-success |
Whether obviousness requires a showing of "predictable" results, as this Court held in KSR, or a mere "reasonable expectation of success," as the Fede… |
| 23-739 |
Jodi A. Schwendimann, fka Jodi A. Dalvey v. Neenah, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2024-01-09 |
Denied |
|
35-usc-103 federal-circuit-review ksr-standard ksr-v-teleflex obviousness patent-law primary-reference prior-art wbip-v-kohler yeda-v-mylan |
In conducting an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Federal Circuit err in holding that there "is no basis in our case law" for requi… |
| 23-575 |
Fleur Tehrani v. Hamilton Technologies LLC |
Federal Circuit |
2023-11-28 |
Denied |
|
35-usc-103 federal-circuit obviousness patent patent-invalidation patent-law posita prior-art |
1. Whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred by declaring a non-expert as a POSITA despite all the evidence presented to the contrary… |
| 23A344 |
Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2023-10-17 |
Presumed Complete |
|
KSR-standard obviousness patent-law pharmaceutical-patents predictable-result prior-art |
This is an application for an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, not a petition itself. The document does not contain a "Q… |
| 21-893 |
Apotex Inc., et al. v. Cephalon, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2021-12-16 |
Denied |
|
35-usc-103 drug-reformulation inventive-process ksr-v-teleflex motivation motivation-to-combine obviousness obviousness-standard patent patent-law person-of-ordinary-skill prior-art |
Whether claimed inventions involving reformulating and administering an old drug in ways that are no better than prior techniques, and which had been … |
| 20-1110 |
Sandoz Inc., et al. v. Immunex Corporation, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2021-02-12 |
Denied |
Amici (1) |
biosimilar-product double-patenting exclusivity federal-circuit invention obviousness obviousness-type-double-patenting patent patent-exclusivity patent-ownership substantial-rights |
Under federal patent law, a patent owner may receive only one period of exclusivity for its invention and may not obtain a second patent on the same i… |
| 20-737 |
B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-11-27 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
administrative-procedure america-invents-act inter-partes-review obviousness patent-challenge patent-validity printed-publications prior-art statutory-interpretation |
In an inter partes review proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), does the Board have authority to consider unpatentability on a ground of obviousness th… |
| 20-74 |
Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Eugene H. Luoma, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-07-27 |
GVR |
Response WaivedRelisted (2) |
administrative-law america-invents-act enablement intellectual-property judicial-review obviousness patent-eligibility patent-review patent-trial-and-appeal-board patent-validity prior-art written-description |
Question not identified. |
| 19-1451 |
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-07-02 |
Denied |
|
administrative-law appointments-clause constitutional-challenge federal-circuit forfeiture ksr-international-co-v-teleflex-inc obviousness patent-act patent-law patent-trial-and-appeal-board pending-case separation-of-powers |
While Sanofi's appeal was pending before the Federal Circuit, the court decided Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019),… |
| 18-1289 |
Allergan, Inc., et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2019-04-10 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
blocking-patent blocking-patent-doctrine commercial-success graham-v-john-deere long-felt-need objective-indicia objective-indicia-of-non-obviousness obviousness patent-law patent-law-doctrine-of-obviousness prior-art |
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in this case, as
it did in Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxanne Laboratories, Inc., 903 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2018), … |
| 18-1280 |
Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2019-04-08 |
Denied |
Amici (5) |
blocking-patent-doctrine blocking-patents burden-of-proof graham-v-john-deere nonobviousness objective-indicia obviousness patent patent-law patent-obviousness pharmaceutical-innovation prior-art |
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent "may not be obtained . .. if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed… |
| 18-1072 |
James J. Macor v. United States Patent and Trademark Office |
Federal Circuit |
2019-02-15 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
35-usc-102 35-usc-103 administrative-law analogous-art obviousness obviousness-standard patent patent-examination patent-law prior-art statutory-interpretation |
In making rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious, what standard should be applied in determining whether prior art is "analogous," and, if the… |
| 18-823 |
ZUP, LLC v. Nash Manufacturing, Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2018-12-28 |
Denied |
Amici (1)Response Waived |
invention invention-evaluation legal-analysis long-felt-need non-obviousness obviousness obviousness-standard patent patent-invalidity patent-law prima-facie prior-art rebuttal secondary-considerations |
Whether evidence of "secondary considerations"
(e.g., a long-felt, but unresolved, need for the patented
invention) is less important, functioning at … |
| 18-692 |
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. UCB, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2018-11-27 |
Denied |
Amici (3)Response Waived |
35-usc-103 double-patenting federal-circuit graham-factors graham-v-john-deere invention-disclosure lead-compound-test obviousness patent-eligibility patent-law patent-law-doctrine-of-double-patenting patent-validity prior-art |
1. This Court has long held that "no patent can issue for an invention actually covered by a former patent, especially to the same patentee." Miller v… |
| 18-441 |
Accord Healthcare, Inc., et al. v. UCB, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2018-10-09 |
Denied |
Amici (1)Response Waived |
35-usc-103 lead-compound obviousness patent patent-invalidation patent-law pharmaceutical pharmaceutical-compound prior-art |
Did the Federal Circuit commit error in holding that a patent claim to an obvious modification of a prior art compound was not invalid as obvious unde… |