-
Doctor’s Best, Inc. v. Nature’s Way Products, LLC
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 24-2719 Opinion Date: July 15, 2025 Doctor’s Best, Inc. (DB), a Delaware corporation, developed a new line of supplements branded as “Nature’s Day” and sought a U.S. trademark. Nature’s Way Products, LLC (NWP), a Wisconsin company owning the “Nature’s Way” trademark, claimed this infringed on their trademark. DB’s…
-
Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Docket: 23-2153 Opinion Date: July 18, 2025 Colibri Heart Valve LLC owns U.S. Patent No. 8,900,294, which claims a method for implanting an artificial heart valve that allows for partial deployment and recapture if positioning is incorrect. Colibri sued Medtronic CoreValve, LLC, alleging that Medtronic induced surgeons to infringe…
-
Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Alkermes PLC
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Opinions Docket: 23-2374 Opinion Date: July 25, 2025 Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. developed Ampyra®, a drug for multiple sclerosis, and had a licensing agreement with Alkermes PLC, which owned a patent for Ampyra’s active ingredient. The patent expired in July 2018, but Acorda continued to make royalty payments to Alkermes…
-
EYE THERAPIES, LLC v. SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Docket: 23-2173 Opinion Date: June 30, 2025 Eye Therapies, LLC owns the ‘742 patent, which describes a method to reduce eye redness using a low-concentration dose of brimonidine. The independent claims of the patent specify that the method consists essentially of administering brimonidine at certain concentrations. During patent prosecution,…
-
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION v. PNC BANK N.A.
Docket: 23-1639 Opinion Date: June 12, 2025 Judge: Todd Hughes United Services Automobile Association (USAA) owns U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638, which is directed to remote check deposit technology. The patent describes a system where a customer uses a personal mobile device to take a picture of a check and transmit the image to a financial institution. The system…
-
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SYNTHEGO CORP.
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Docket: 23-2186 Opinion Date: June 11, 2025 Judge: Sharon Prost Agilent Technologies, Inc. appealed two final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) that determined all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,337,001 and 10,900,034 to be unpatentable. The patents in question relate to CRISPR-Cas systems for gene…
-
Supreme Court Case Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi Summary and Its Implication in Biotech Patents
The United States Supreme Court case, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, has significant implications for patent law, particularly in the realm of pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. This case revolved around the enablement requirement of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a). Background Amgen and Sanofi, two pharmaceutical giants, each obtained a patent in 2011 for the antibody…
-
The Impact of United States v. Arthrex Inc. on PTAB Proceedings
The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex Inc. has limited impact on the structure of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) due to the Courts’ narrow remedy and proposed fix of adding a layer of Director review. The case, decided in June 2021, addressed the…
-
The Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. Case: A Landmark Decision in Patent Law
The Supreme Court’s decision in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. has far-reaching implications for patent law, particularly concerning the doctrine of assignor estoppel. This case, decided in June 2021, centered around the question of whether the doctrine of assignor estoppel should be retained, modified, or eliminated altogether. This blog post provides an overview of the case,…
-
Understanding the Impact of Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies on Patent Litigation
The Supreme Court’s decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies has significant implications for the landscape of patent litigation, particularly concerning the doctrine of inter partes review (IPR). This case, decided in April 2020, addressed the question of whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can determine whether a petition for IPR is timely…
EPIMED RESEARCH 