Source: https://www.foley.com/courtenay-c-brinckerhoff/?op=intelligence
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:47:43+00:00

Document:
In Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit distinguished method of treatment claims that involve personalized dosing from the claims invalidated in Mayo v. Prometheus, and found them to satisfy 35 USC 101 by analogy to Vanda.
In Natural Alternatives Internat’l v. Creative Compounds, LLC, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court decision that held the asserted claims invalid under 35 USC § 101 at the pleadings stage.
In Ni-Q, LLC v. Prolacta Bioscience, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of Oregon invalidated under 35 USC § 101 Prolacta’s patent on testing milk to establish or confirm the identity of the donor.
In Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co., the Federal Circuit issued another decision analyzing the contours of a petitioner’s Article III standing to appeal PTAB decisions upholding a patent.
In Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC, the Federal Circuit once again held diagnostic method claims invalid under 35 USC § 101.
The Federal Circuit decision in Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc., highlights the difficulty of challenging a patent directed to a new chemical entity.
In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Supreme Court interpreted the “on sale bar” of the America Invents Act (AIA) version of 35 U.S.C. § 102 as unchanged from the pre-AIA version. In so doing, the Court put to rest suggestions that the AIA eliminated “secret sales” as prior art, and expressly held to the contrary.
In this article, I look at the lead compound analysis that led the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to uphold the claims against an obviousness challenge, including a factor that doesn’t always get much attention.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 § 102