CAFC News Brief

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Torrent Pharma Inc., decided 10 Jan 25

This case centered on the validity of Novartis's patent for Entresto, a heart failure medication. The lower court found the patent invalid for lack of written description, but the appeals court reversed this decision, finding the patent adequately described the claimed invention. The appeals court upheld the lower court's findings that the patent claims were not obvious or lacking enablement. The dispute involved the construction of the claim term "administered in combination," impacting whether the patent covered a complexed or uncomplexed form of the drug.

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., decided 30 Dec 24

This decision affirms a lower court's ruling that several Purdue Pharma patents related to OxyContin are invalid due to obviousness. The patents covered two aspects: a crush-resistant formulation and a process to reduce a potentially genotoxic impurity. The appeals court reviewed the lower court's findings on motivation to combine prior art, reasonable expectation of success, and secondary considerations of non-obviousness. The court found no clear error in the lower court's determination that a person skilled in the art would have found the claimed inventions obvious, based on prior art and routine experimentation. Therefore, the appeals court upheld the invalidation of the patents.

Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals Of New York, LLC, decided 20 Dec 24

This case decision concerns a dispute between Teva and Amneal over Teva's listing of patents in the FDA's Orange Book, which impacts generic drug approvals. Amneal argued that Teva improperly listed patents relating to the inhaler device, not the active ingredient, delaying generic competition. The district court agreed, ordering Teva to delist the patents. The appeals court affirmed this decision, clarifying that to be listable, a patent must claim at least the active ingredient of the approved drug, not just any component. The court rejected Teva's arguments that "claims" equates to "infringes" and that any component of a drug product qualifies for listing.

Lone Star Technological Innovations, LLC v. Asus Computer International, decided 20 Dec 24

In this trial court, Lone Star Technological Innovations sued Asus for inducing infringement of a patent related to color display technology. Asus appealed, raising several arguments including lack of standing, insufficient evidence of damages, and improper claim construction. The appeals court rejected all of Asus's arguments, finding that Lone Star had met its burden of proof and that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict. The court held that Asus was liable for induced patent infringement.

Altria Client Services LLC v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, decided 19 Dec 24

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's judgment in a patent infringement case where Altria Client Services LLC successfully sued R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company for infringement of three patents related to electronic vapor devices. Reynolds appealed the jury verdict awarding Altria over $95 million in damages, challenging the infringement finding, the exclusion of certain invalidity evidence, the damages calculation, and the apportionment of damages. The appeals court affirmed the district court's decision on all issues except for one judge's partial dissent regarding the damages calculation, which was based on the interpretation of a comparable license agreement.

Cloudofchange, LLC V. NCR Corporation, decided 18 Dec 24

The CAFC overturned a lower court ruling on a patent infringement case between CloudofChange, LLC and NCR Corporation. CloudofChange alleged that NCR's point-of-sale system, NCR Silver, infringed on their patents. The lower court found direct infringement, attributing the merchants' use of the system to NCR. The appeals court reversed, determining that NCR's merchants, not NCR itself, controlled and benefitted from the system's use, thus no direct infringement occurred. The court clarified the difference between system and method claim infringement, rejecting the lower court's reliance on vicarious liability based on a single system element.

Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Belvac Production Machinery, Inc., decided 10 Dec 24

In Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Belvac Production Machinery, Inc., the core issue is the validity of Crown's patents for necking machines, challenged by Belvac's claim that a pre-critical date offer for sale invalidated them under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The Federal Circuit reversed the lower court's decision, finding that Crown's letter to Complete Packaging Machinery constituted an invalidating commercial offer for sale in the United States. The court's ruling centers on whether the letter's terms were sufficiently definite to create a binding contract and whether the offer was made within the U.S. The infringement issue was not addressed due to the invalidity determination.

DDR Holdings, Llc v. Priceline.Com LLC, decided 9 Dec 24

This is a CAFC decision in the case of DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com LLC. The core issue is the proper claim construction of the terms "merchants" and "commerce object" within a patent related to e-commerce website design. The appeals court affirmed the district court's interpretation, holding that "merchants" refers only to purveyors of goods, not services, based on a significant omission in the final patent specification compared to an earlier application. This interpretation, also applied to "commerce object", resulted in a finding of non-infringement. The court rejected the appellant's arguments, including a collateral estoppel claim, due to forfeiture and differing claim construction standards between the lower court and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

PS Products Inc. v. Panther Trading Co. Inc., decided 6 Dec 24

The CAFC affirms a lower court's decision to impose sanctions on PS Products, Inc. and its attorney for filing a frivolous design patent infringement lawsuit. The lower court awarded attorney fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and additional deterrence sanctions under its inherent power. The appeals court upheld both awards, rejecting arguments that the sanctions were improperly imposed because the lawsuit was demonstrably meritless due to plainly dissimilar designs and improper venue. The appeal court declined to award additional fees for the appeal, despite finding the appeal itself to be without merit.

Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Lupin Inc., decided 6 Dec 24

Galderma Laboratories sued Lupin Inc. for patent infringement related to their respective doxycycline products. The lawsuit centered on whether Lupin's abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) infringed Galderma's patents. A district court found no infringement, a decision upheld by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court agreed with the lower court's assessment of the presented evidence, particularly regarding the reliability of dissolution tests used to demonstrate infringement. The court determined that Galderma failed to prove infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Ultimately, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s judgment in favor of Lupin.