Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Case

CASE OF THE WEEK

Duke University v. Sandoz Inc., Appeal No. 2024-1078 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 18, 2025)

This week, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law for Sandoz Inc., finding that a claim of Duke University and Allergan Sales, LLC’s (collectively, “Allergan”) U.S. Patent No. 9,579,270 is invalid for lack of adequate written description. The ’270 patent claims formulations for treating hair loss, and the Court concluded that any reasonable juror would have found, by clear and convincing evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art reviewing the patent would be unable to visualize or recognize members of the claimed subgenus of chemical compounds.

The ’270 patent describes a method for growing hair by topically applying a chemical compound known as prostaglandin. Allergan markets Latisse, an FDA-approved topical solution for treating eyelash hair loss. Sandoz manufactures and sells a generic version of Latisse. In 2018, Allergan sued Sandoz, alleging its generic drug product infringed claim 30 of the ‘270 patent. Sandoz stipulated to infringement but challenged the validity of the claim. After a five-day jury trial, the jury found that Sandoz had failed to prove that claim 30 was invalid for obviousness, lack of enablement, or lack of adequate written description, and awarded Allergan $39 million in infringement damages. Sandoz filed a motion for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), both of which the district court denied. This appeal followed.

READ MORE

Editors:

Nika Aldrich, IP Litigation Group Leader, Schwabe

Jason A. Wrubleski, Shareholder

Contributors:

Julia Davis, Associate