Tag Archives: Hatch-Waxman

Is the “Blocking Patent” Doctrine Part of the Obviousness Analysis?

Last year, in a lengthy split decision, a Fed. Cir. panel affirmed the district court’s ruling that four “add-on” patents that Acorda owned were invalid as obviousness in view of a number of prior art references (Acorda Ther., Inc. v. … Continue reading

Posted in Section 103 | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hikma and West-Ward v. Vanda – Are Methods of Medical Treatment Patent-Eligible?

Hikma Pharms. and West-Ward Pharms petition for cert. to reverse the Fed. Cir.’s decision in Vanda v. West-Ward that methods of medical treatment are patentable. The Supreme Court’s now-infamous Mayo decision, invalidated claims to a method for determining the optimal … Continue reading

Posted in 2017 Patent Review | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

UCB, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc. – Can a Racemic Mixture be a “Lead Compound.”

UCB v. Accord, Appeal no. 2016-2610 et al. (Fed. Cir., May 23, 2018) may be headed to the Supreme Court, which prompted me to take another look at this opinion. This was a decision in Hatch-Waxman litigation, in which a … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit Circumvents Mayo/Alice Rule in Vanda v. West-Ward

After Cleveland Clinic, IP practitioners were left to speculate about the fate of claims directed to methods of medical treatment. These claims seemed next in line for extinction by the Mayo/Alice rule, which I will paraphrase: “If a patent claim … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment