Precedential Opinions

  1. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC v. SANDOZ INC. [OPINION] (Reyna, Bryson and Stoll) Reyna, J. Affirming district court’s judgment that four dosing patents directed to treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis were obvious. Claim term reciting doses “sufficient” to achieve treatment were non-limiting. Dosing regimen was obvious where a POSITA would have had only a limited number of permutations of dose and frequency to explore that were not already disclosed in the prior art.

  2. YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.[OPINION] (Reyna, Bryson and Stoll) Reyna, J. In companion case to TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC v. SANDOZ INC.[OPINION], affirming PTAB opinion that three of the same patents were obvious.

  3. DATA ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. GOOGLE LLC [OPINION] (Reyna, Bryson and Stoll) Stoll, J. Affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part and holding that some claims were directed to patent eligible subject matter and some were not based on whether they were directed to an “abstract idea.” The patents generally claimed systems and methods for making complex spreadsheets more accessible.

  4. ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC. v. CEPHEID [OPINION] (O’Malley, Reyna and Hughes) Reyna, J. Affirming summary judgment that patent directed to detecting pathogenic bacterium was invalid for claiming patent ineligible subject matter. Claims directed to primers were invalid because they were indistinguishable from naturally occurring DNA. Method claims that included a detecting step were also unpatentable as directed to a natural phenomenon. O’Malley, J. concurred that case was controlled by BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation, 774 F.3d 755, 758 (Fed. Cir. 2014) but would revisit the holding of the BRCA2 case, at least with respect to the primer claims.