Precedential Opinions
1 TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC v. SANDOZ INC.
[OPINION] (Reyna, Bryson and Stoll)
Reyna, J. Affirming district court's judgment that four dosing
patents directed to treatment of relapsing forms of multiple
sclerosis were obvious. Claim term reciting doses
"sufficient" to achieve treatment were non-limiting.
Dosing regimen was obvious where a POSITA would have had only a
limited number of permutations of dose and frequency to explore
that were not already disclosed in the prior art.
2 YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT v. MYLAN
PHARMACEUTICALS INC. [OPINION] (Reyna, Bryson and Stoll)
Reyna, J. In companion case to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC v. SANDOZ INC.
[OPINION], affirming PTAB opinion that three of the same
patents were obvious.
3 DATA ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. GOOGLE LLC
[OPINION] (Reyna, Bryson and Stoll)
Stoll, J. Affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part and holding that
some claims were directed to patent eligible subject matter and
some were not based on whether they were directed to an
"abstract idea." The patents generally claimed systems
and methods for making complex spreadsheets more accessible.
4 ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC. v. CEPHEID
[OPINION] (O'Malley, Reyna and Hughes)
Reyna, J. Affirming summary judgment that patent directed to
detecting pathogenic bacterium was invalid for claiming patent
ineligible subject matter. Claims directed to primers were invalid
because they were indistinguishable from naturally occurring DNA.
Method claims that included a detecting step were also unpatentable
as directed to a natural phenomenon. O'Malley, J. concurred
that case was controlled by BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary
Cancer Test Patent Litigation, 774 F.3d 755, 758 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
but would revisit the holding of the BRCA2 case, at least with
respect to the primer claims.
For more information, including commentary and copies of briefs and decisions on current hot topics in IP law, visit wilmerhale.com/en/solutions/intellectual-property-litigation.
For patent cases in which petitions for certiorari have been granted, are pending, or have recently been denied, visit wilmerhale.com/en/solutions/appellate-and-supreme-court-litigation
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
