To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a modified opinion correcting certain facts relating to a decision in which it originally concluded that because a plaintiff was a successor in bankruptcy, it was a successor in an
inter partes re-examination.
Mojave Desert Holdings, LLC v. Crocs, Inc., Case No. 20-1167 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 21, 2021 (modified), Feb. 11, 2021 (original)) (Dyk, J.)
In its original decision, the Court found that Mojave should be substituted for the original requestor following the sale of the original re-examination requestor’s right, title and interest in, to and under its assets to a holding company, which further assigned such assets and interests to Mojave. After the decision, Crocs moved for reconsideration because the original opinion incorrectly found that Mojave was the original requestor’s successor-in-interest. Instead, Crocs argued that Mojave had simply acquired assets fro
Latest Federal Court Cases - April 2021 #3 | Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC
jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Fed Cir: Bankruptcy Successor Also Inter Partes Re-Exam Successor
natlawreview.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from natlawreview.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi
, Appeal No. 2020-1074 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2021)
In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s JMOL ruling that asserted claims of two related pharmaceutical patents were invalid because their shared specification did not enable the full scope of the claims. The patents were directed to synthetic antibodies used in high cholesterol treatments that operate by binding to specified amino acids (or “residues”) of enzyme PCSK9, thereby blocking PCSK9 from binding to LDL cholesterol receptors (“LDLR”) and permitting those receptors to remove LDL cholesterol from the bloodstream.
The claims at issue contained dual functional limitations, requiring that a claimed antibody both bind to at least one or two of numerous listed PCSK9 residues (i.e., in ranges from one or two residues to all of them), and that the antibodies block the PCSK9/LDLR interaction. Appellee Sanofi contended that because there are millions of antibody