Jury Notes

The Biggest Patent Decisions Of 2024

Here are the notable 2024 Federal Circuit patent decisions as chosen by our friends at Law360. If you would like a deeper analysis of any specific case, read the article and/or the full text of the cases. This article is summarized by ChatGPT. Let us know if you think AI did a good job and would save you time in law practice.

1. Allergan v. MSN Laboratories

• Issue: Double patenting concerns arising from patent term adjustments.
• Ruling: The first-filed, first-issued patent in a family cannot be invalidated for obviousness-type double patenting based on later patents.
• Implications:
  • Provides relief to the pharmaceutical industry concerned about portfolio vulnerability.
  • Encourages strategic filing of applications to secure the longest patent terms.
  • Incentivizes pursuing patent term adjustments for initial patents in a family.
• Full Text of Decision: Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., Case No. 24-1061

2. LKQ Corp. v. GM

• Issue: Tests for determining obviousness in design patents.
• Ruling: Stricter rules for design patents were replaced by the flexibility used for utility patents in obviousness analyses.
• Implications:
  • Design patents may face more challenges and invalidity claims.
  • Patent holders need robust evidence to defend patents.
  • May lead to more jury decisions on obviousness issues in district courts.
• Full Text of Decision: LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, Case No. 21-2348

3. Ericsson v. Lenovo

• Issue: Anti-suit injunctions related to standard-essential patents (SEPs).
• Ruling: Lowered the threshold for obtaining anti-suit injunctions in U.S. courts.
• Implications:
  • Strengthens U.S. courts' role in global SEP disputes.
  • Encourages defining fair licensing rates in U.S. litigation to preempt foreign injunctions.
  • Simplifies the process for determining U.S. case impact on foreign issues.
• Full Text of Decision: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., Case No. 24-1515

4. Amarin v. Hikma

• Issue: Liability for generics over marketing materials for skinny-labeled drugs.
• Ruling: Hikma's marketing may have induced patent infringement, even with a proper skinny label.
• Implications:
  • Raises potential for post-launch litigation based on marketing content.
  • Generic makers must scrutinize promotional materials to avoid liability.
• Full Text of Decision: Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Case No. 23-1169

5. WARF v. Apple

• Issue: Limits on new litigation theories after earlier strategic trial decisions.
• Ruling: WARF could not pursue new infringement theories (doctrine of equivalents) not raised in earlier litigation.
• Implications:
  • Highlights the long-term impact of trial strategy in tech-related cases.
  • Stresses the need for foresight in litigation involving evolving technologies.
• Full Text of Decision: Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc., Case No. 22-1884

These decisions underscore the importance of strategic planning in patent filings, litigation, and portfolio management. Patent owners and challengers must navigate evolving rules, necessitating careful consideration of litigation strategies and evidence collection. The rulings reflect broader trends in balancing patent protections with opportunities for challenges and innovations in enforcement strategies.