温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.fr.com/insights/thought-leadership/blogs/lessons-from-recent-pharma-med-device-federal-circuit-decisions
点击访问原文链接

Lessons From Recent Pharma & Med Device Federal Circuit Decisions

进入原网站 导航首页
Lessons From Recent Pharma & Med Device Federal Circuit Decisions Skip to Main Content Why Fish Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Pro Bono & Social Responsibility Legal Operations Pricing Legal Project Management Knowledge Management eDiscovery Legal Technology Services Our People Services Litigation Patent Litigation Trademark, Copyright & Media Litigation Trade Secret Litigation Appellate ITC Litigation & Section 337 Standard Essential Patents Chancery & Corporate Governance Post-Grant Inter Partes Review Post-Grant Review Ex Parte Reexamination Supplemental Examination Patent Patent Prosecution Strategic Patent Counseling & Opinions Patent Portfolio Management Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court IP Licensing, Transactions & Agreements Trademark & Copyright Counseling & Prosecution Strategic Counseling, Registration & Opinions Advertising & Marketing Domain Names & Internet TTAB Oppositions & Cancellations Digital Millennium Copyright Act Transactions & Agreements Regulatory & Government Affairs Communications & Spectrum Regulation Drug & Medical Device Regulation mHealth & Telemedicine Privacy & Data Security Industries Electrical & Computer Technology Software & Internet Hardware Semiconductors Consumer Electronics Optics Artificial Intelligence Digital Health Digital Media & E-Commerce Financial, Business & FinTech Services Telecommunications Energy & Chemicals Petrochemical Cleantech Life Sciences Biotech & Diagnostics Medical Devices Pharmaceuticals Academic Research & Medical Centers Transportation, Aerospace & Defense Manufacturing Autonomous Vehicles Insights Thought Leadership IP Law Essentials Post-Grant Annual Reports Webinars Podcasts Offices Careers News & Events Contact Us

Blog December 29, 2025

Lessons From Recent Pharma & Med Device Federal Circuit Decisions Fish & Richardson

Home Insights Thought Leadership Lessons From Recent Pharma & Med Device... Authors Name Madelyn McCormick Person title Principal Name Grayson Sundermeir Person title Principal Patent law in the life sciences industry evolves rapidly, with several recent Federal Circuit decisions showing how those shifts can impact intellectual property strategy. The cases discussed below touch on everything from dosing regimen claims and what qualifies as prior art to claim construction and patent term extensions. Each decision offers practical patent insights for pharma and med device innovators.

Bayer Pharma v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals (C.A. No. 2023-2434) Bayer appealed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision invalidating claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,828,310 directed to methods for reducing cardiovascular risk in patients with coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease by administering rivaroxaban and aspirin. The claims specified exact dosages (2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily and 75–100 mg aspirin daily) and dosing regimen, both of which were known in the art. Indeed, prior art references (Foley and Plosker) disclosed the same dosing regimens in clinical trials. As the basis for purported novelty, the claims included the additional limitation that the claimed rivaroxaban and aspirin amounts were “clinically proven effective.” Bayer argued that “clinically proven effective” was a limiting clause analogous to the efficacy clauses upheld in Allergan v. Sandoz (935 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).

The Federal Circuit held that “clinically proven effective” did not add a new functional relationship to the claimed method. The claims already specified the exact dosages and regiment and "clinically proven effective” did nothing further to define the dosages. It was therefore a functionally unrelated limitation, like the “informing the patient” limitations at issue in King Pharmaceuticals (616 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). It therefore could not rescue anticipated claims.

Key takeaways This case highlights the pitfalls of waiting for clinical trial results before filing patent applications. It is ideal to file patent applications before clinical trial disclosures, if possible. When relying on performance-based outcomes for novelty in patent claims, the performance of the claimed method should have a new and nonobvious functional relationship with the claimed regimen. Merck Serono S.A. v. Hopewell Pharma Ventures, Inc. (No. 2025-1210) Merck partnered with IVAX to develop oral cladribine for multiple sclerosis under a joint research agreement: Merck would conduct clinical trials and IVAX would develop oral dosage formulations. IVAX employees filed a Patent Cooperation Treaty application (later U.S. Patent No. 7,888,328, “Bodor”) disclosing a seven-line regimen for oral cladribine and included only two IVAX employees. Within a year, Merck filed priority applications leading to the patents-in-suit listing four inventors from Serono (which became Merck).

Merck argued Bodor was not a work “by another” because three of its inventors collaborated on the disclosure. The PTAB found Merck failed to show that all four inventors contributed to Bodor’s seven-line disclosure at issue. The PTAB relied on pre-America Invents Act § 102(e) law that says any incongruity in inventive entity makes the reference prior art.

The Federal Circuit upheld that Bodor was prior art, emphasizing that only complete identity of inventive entities can exclude a reference as “not by another.”

Key takeaways Strict standard: Complete identity of inventive entity is required to exclude a reference as “not by another.” Burden on patentee: Must provide corroborated evidence of joint contribution by all inventors. Strategic advantage for challengers: Even minor inventorship differences strengthen invalidity defenses under § 102(e). Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. (C.A. No. 2024-1145) This dispute involved transcatheter aortic valve replacement devices. Aortic Innovations appealed a stipulated judgment of non-infringement based on claim construction of “outer frame.” The specification described dual-frame embodiments and used the terms “outer frame,” “self-expanding frame,” and “self-expanding outer frame” interchangeably when referring to structures in Figures 9 and 20. The district court construed “outer frame” as “self-expanding frame,” leading to non-infringement because Edwards’ device lacked a self-expanding frame.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s construction, finding that consistent interchangeable use in the specification redefined “outer frame” and that a skilled artisan would understand the claimed term to mean “self-expanding frame.”

Key takeaways Beware of unintended lexicography; interchangeable use of terms in the specification and in describing embodiments can override plain and ordinary meaning and narrow claim scope. Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (C.A. No. 23-2254) This case addresses whether patent term extensions (PTE) under 35 U.S.C. § 156 for a reissued patent should be calculated based on the issue date of the original patent or the reissue patent. Merck’s ’340 patent issued in 2003 and covered sugammadex, the active ingredient in BRIDION®. Regulatory review lasted until 2015, delaying market entry for 12 years. Merck reissued the patent in 2014, retaining the original claims and adding narrower claims. Merck then sought a five-year PTE based on the original patent’s issue date. Aurobindo argued that PTE should be calculated from the reissue date, which would drastically shorten the extension.

The Federal Circuit held that PTE for a reissued patent is based on the original patent’s issue date, provided both patents include the same claims directed to the drug product subject to FDA review. In reaching this holding, the Federal Circuit explained that construing “the patent” in § 156(c) as the original patent aligns with the Hatch-Waxman Act’s purpose of compensating patent owners for regulatory delay.

Key takeaways For PTE and reissued patents, it’s the original patent’s issue date that matters, provided that both the original patent and the reissued patent have claims covering the approved drug product. Reissue does not negate entitlement to full PTE under the Hatch-Waxman Act. In summary These decisions underscore important lessons for life sciences companies seeking to protect and enforce their intellectual property assets. From Bayer’s reminder to file before clinical disclosures, to Merck Serono’s strict inventorship standard, Aortic Innovations’ caution on unintended lexicography, and Merck Sharp & Dohme’s clarification on patent term extensions, the lessons are clear: Diligence in drafting, timing, and claim language is essential to protect innovation and maintain exclusivity in a competitive regulatory landscape.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.

Related Services Litigation Patent Litigation Appellate Patent Patent Prosecution Post-Grant Review Inter Partes Review Regulatory & Government Affairs Drug & Medical Device Regulation Related Industries Life Sciences Pharmaceuticals Medical Devices More by same author(s) Blog May 23, 2025 HHS Sets Most-Favored-Nation Price Targets for Pharmaceuticals  Read more Blog May 14, 2025 How Trump’s Latest Drug Price EO Could Impact Pharma Read more Blog April 18, 2025 Trump’s Drug Price Executive Order: What Drugmakers Should Know Read more Blog March 18, 2025 Federal Circuit: PTE for Reissue Patents Should Be Calculated From Original Patent’s Issue Date Read more Blog February 24, 2025 Biologics and Biosimilars Landscape 2024: IP, Policy, and Market Developments  Read more Blog January 8, 2025 Hatch-Waxman 201 Read more Blog April 5, 2024 Biologics and Biosimilars Landscape 2023: IP, Policy, and Market Developments Read more Article February 5, 2024 Hatch-Waxman 2023 Year in Review Read more Blog December 18, 2023 The Federal Circuit Weighs in On Hatch-Waxman “Skinny” Label Infringement Dispute Read more Blog October 11, 2022 Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB's Final Written Decision that Merck's Claimed Inventions Were Not "At Once Envisaged" From the Prior Art Read more Related thought leadership Blog February 24, 2026 The Shifting SEP Litigation Landscape: How Changes in the Types of Litigated SEPs Can Affect Implementers Read more Blog February 19, 2026 Be Careful What You Wish For: How Stipulations Become Federal Circuit Issues Read more Article February 13, 2026 Semiconductor Litigation: Advanced Process Transitions and the Next Wave of Patent Risk Read more Blog February 10, 2026 How To Kill a Weak Patent: 10 Strategies After Being Sued Read more Article February 9, 2026 Learning From a Typical Section 1782 Discovery Case Read more Blog February 5, 2026 Federal Circuit Signals Tension in Expert Testimony Jurisprudence: EcoFactor and Barry Read more Article February 4, 2026 Adding to the SEP Toolkit: AI and SEP Analysis Read more Blog January 30, 2026 D. Mass.: “Ensnarement” — a Potent but Often Overlooked Defense to the Doctrine of Equivalents — Need Not Be Raised in the Pleadings Read more Blog January 23, 2026 Protecting Your Edge: Detecting Trade Secret Risks and Preparing for Litigation Read more Blog January 20, 2026 Texas Round-Up: December 2025 Read more Offices Atlanta Austin Boston Chicago Dallas Delaware Houston Minneapolis Munich New York Orange County San Diego Shenzhen Silicon Valley Washington, D.C. Careers Life at Fish Judicial Clerks Law Students Lateral Hires Scientists & Engineers Operations & Admin Staff Training & Benefits FAQ Subscribe Contact Us Site Information Site Map Cookie Policy Disclaimer Privacy Policy Terms of Use

Copyright © 2026 Fish & Richardson P.C.

智能索引记录