Markman Advisors
Patent Valuation, Monetization and Investments

Blog

Markman Advisors Patent Blog

Posts tagged Federal Circuit
Will Bio-Rad’s patent fight stop 10x Genomics’ trajectory?

10x Genomics ($TXG) launched its IPO on September 12, trading up as much as 49% on its debut.  While the market is rewarding the company’s prospects, its lingering patent fight with Bio-Rad Laboratories ($BIO) continues.  Bio-Rad and 10x have been locked in a patent battle over technology allegedly covering most of 10x’s products.  The case, which has been pending since 2015, is now heading to appeal.  10x suffered a fairly significant loss at the jury trial, after which the court ordered an injunction against essentially all of 10x’s products.  Earlier this year, 10x launched a redesigned product to circumvent, Next GEM, to circumvent the injunction.  Yet, on the eve of 10x’s IPO, Bio-Rad hit 10x with another patent suit, now directly targeting 10x’s Next GEM product.  Can Bio-Rad’s patents stop 10x’s trajectory? 

Read More
Should NPE patent-aggregators be worried about violating antitrust law?

The Federal Circuit recently ruled on a case brought by Intellectual Ventures against Capital One ($COF).  The case is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 2018-1367 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 10, 2019).  While the underlying case arose out of IV’s assertion of its patents against Capital One, the appeal focuses on Capital One’s counterclaim that IV was an unlawful monopolist by aggregating a series of patents and asserting them through litigation.  Capital One lost the appeal.  But the question remains – how much teeth do antitrust counterclaims have against aggregating and enforcing patents through litigation?

Read More
Will Amgen’s PCSK9 loss read-through to patents covering other biologics drugs?

The long-running patent dispute between Amgen ($AMGN) and Regeneron($REGN) and Sanofi over their competing PCSK9-inhibitors (Repatha® and Praluent®) has reached another milestone.  The case also represents another milestone in the changing landscape for patents covering biologic drugs.  The Amgen decision is at least the second district court decision this year that has invalidated biologic antibody patents under the doctrine of enablement.  The earlier decision related to MorphoSys patents asserted against Janssen related to Darzalex®.  The takeaway is clear:  as biologic drugs take up a larger share of the pharmaceutical medications in the U.S., courts are making it harder for drug companies to use overly-broad patents to corner the market on a particular inhibitor.

Read More
Will Amgen win another injunction against Regeneron’s Praluent?

Amgen ($AMGN) is about to square off once again against Regeneron ($REGN) and Sanofi over whether Praluent® should be pulled from the market.  Having prevailed at another jury trial earlier this year showing that Amgen’s PCSK9 protein patents are both valid and infringed, Amgen has renewed its bid for a court order enjoining Praluent® from the market.  The injunction hearing is scheduled for June 2019.  Over two years ago, Amgen prevailed after an earlier injunction hearing where the court ordered Praluent® to be barred from the market.  Will Amgen be able to prevail again? 

Read More
What happens when a district court and the PTAB disagree over the validity of a patent?

In a recent district court decision from the District of Delaware, the court granted a preliminary injunction, and ordered the defendant to pull the accused products, even though, a few months earlier, a Final Written Decision by the PTAB in an inter partes review proceeding held all asserted claims of the patent-in-suit unpatentable.  What was the court’s reasoning?  And what are the implications?

Read More
Federal Circuit clarifies patent-eligibility for diagnostic method patents: Endo v. Teva and Natural Alternatives v. Creative Compounds.

The Federal Circuit has recently issued two precedential decisions that clarify when method-of-use and diagnostic patents are directed to eligible subject matter rather than natural laws.  Some clear guidelines are solidifying that should make enforcement of these principally pharmaceutical-type patents easier to handicap.

Read More
Are polymorph patents necessarily obvious? A recent CAFC decision may read-through to Revlimid’s polymorph patents.

The Federal Circuit has issued a precedential decision addressing whether a patent covering a given polymorph was invalid as obvious, Grunenthal GmbH v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd.  Though the Court explained that it was not establishing a categorical rule that polymorph patents can never be obvious, the case nonetheless provides important guidelines for when a polymorph patents are likely to be invalid.  For those following Revlimid®’s patent cases, the immediate question is—does the Grunenthal case have read-through to Celgene’s polymorph patents? 

Read More
Does UC’s new CRISPR-Cas9 patent really cover eukaryotes?

In the latest episode in the long-running CRISPR-Cas9 patent battle between the University of California and Broad, UC has obtained a new patent related CRISPR-Cas9.  UC has touted this patent, as well as another expected to issue shortly, as “useful to locate and edit genes in any setting, including within plant, animal, and human cells.”  So, did UC just win patents covering CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotes?  How does this square with the patent interference that UC recently lost at the Federal Circuit on this very issue?

Read More
MorphoSys loses its Darzalex patent case against J&J—what happens next?

Morphosys’ ($MOR) patent trial against Janssen ($JNJ) and Genmab was headed for trial in February.  In advance of that trial, however, the parties traded numerous summary judgment motions.  On January 26, Genmab announced that the District Court granted its motion to invalidate the asserted patents.  What happens next?

Read More
For Amgen’s PCSK9 patent case, is there any read-through from Court’s summary judgment order to the trial?

On January 18, the District Court in Delaware issued an opinion resolving multiple summary judgment motions filed by both parties.  The key takeaway from that decision is that the case is now teed-up for trial beginning on February 19. But the Court didi highlight some key issues likely to be the focus of the trial.

Read More
Does Alice require fact questions or not? The Federal Circuit appears split.

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential decisions that were predicted to stem the tide of early dismissals based upon Alice motions.  The cases were  Berkheimer v. HP and Aatrix Software v. Green Shades Software, and there were both deemed precedential by the Federal Circuit.  A recent concurrence at the Federal Circuit, however, shows that the Court may be splitting over the rationale underpinning Berkheimer and Aatrix, and that split may be heading for the Supreme Court. 

Read More
The Federal Circuit sends a message about attorneys’ fees in Spineology v. Wright Medical

A recent precedential decision from the Federal Circuit sheds important light on how the Court views attorneys fees in patent cases.

Read More
Will MorphoSys’ Darzalex patent case against Janssen make it to trial, or be stopped at summary judgment?

The Darzalex® patent case commenced by MorphoSys against Janssen is headed towards trial.  Before that, however, the parties recently filed a series of summary judgment motions, and on December 3, 2018, the Court heard oral argument.  Will the Court moot the trial by granting Janssen’s motions to invalidate the patents?

Read More
What are the takeaways from Unified Patents v. Realtime, the PTAB’s first post-AIT RPI decision?

The PTAB has issued its first post-AIT decision, Unified Patents, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC.  In Realtime, the Patent Owner sought to defeat institution by arguing that Unified has run afoul of the AIT decision by failing to identify all RPIs, namely, its members.  The PTAB disagreed and instituted Unified’s IPR.  (The institution decision was entered in October, but the redacted decision issued on November 27, 2018).  How do we square the AIT decision with the Realtime decision?  Will third-party filers, such as Unified and RPX, no longer face RPI issues?

Read More
The CAFC Curbs Personal Jurisdiction For Declaratory Judgment Actions.

A recent precedential case by the Federal Circuit, Maxchief Investments, Ltd. v. Wok & Pan, Ind., Inc., shows that the risk of a DJ action resulting from a pre-suit notice letter may be less troubling for a different reason than the one that preceded TC Heartland—namely, personal jurisdiction.

Read More
A very important CAFC decision for induced infringement: Enplas Display v. Seoul Semiconductor

Today, the Federal Circuit issued an important precedential decision for induced infringement.  The case, Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., Case No. 2016-2599 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19, 2018), indicates that defendants that manufacture and sell components abroad cannot so easily evade induced infringement by claiming ignorance that their products end up within the U.S. market. 

Read More
If Hatch-Waxman cases are governed by TC Heartland, will that lead to “generic friendly” districts?

Mylan ($MYL) recently prevailed on a motion to dismiss for improper venue in a pending Hatch-Waxman case for the drug Eliquis®.  Mylan successfully argued that Delaware was an improper venue under the recently test for venue in patent cases enunciated by the Supreme Court in TC Heartland.  What are the implications of TC Heartland governing venue in all Hatch-Waxman cases?  Will it lead to “generic friendly” judicial districts?

Read More
UC loses the CRISPR-Cas9 patent appeal—now what?

The CRISP-Cas9 saga has effectively come to an end.  For now.  On September 10, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the PTAB dismissing the interference between UC and Broad.  What are the implications for UC’s patents? What are the chances UC can successfully appeal to the Supreme Court?

Read More
Can Unified Patents survive the Federal Circuit’s RPI decision?

The Federal Circuit recently issued a strong decision instructing the PTAB to rethink the way that it decides who is an RPI (real-party-in-interest).  While the decision involved RPX, it presents a more existential threat to Unified Patents, which has risen as one of the most prolific non-party filers of IPRs.  Can Unified survive the CAFC’s RPX decision?

Read More
Yes, Judge Plager’s admonishment that district courts stop applying Alice does matter.

 On July 20, in an otherwise unremarkable opinion, the Honorable S. Jay Plager issued a stinging dissent that should resound throughout the patent community—and may, in fact, resound throughout district courts.  See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., No. 2016-2502 (July 20, 2018).  Interestingly, Judge Plager did not dissent from the majority’s holding itself, but rather concurred in the reasoning of the majority.  Instead, and importantly, he dissented in the Federal Circuit’s “continued application of [Alice’s] incoherent body of doctrine.” Judge Plager’s dissent is nothing short of a recommendation that district courts stop applying the Alice doctrine, at least not until resolution of other defenses in the case. Does that matter?

Read More