Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Cases

CASE OF THE WEEK

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2025-1228, -1252 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2025)

Our Case of the Week focuses on obviousness.  More particularly, the decision included a lengthy discussion on a so-called “presumption” of obviousness that has been invoked in cases involving overlapping ranges.  Nearly 10 pages of the Court’s decision addressed this “presumption,” providing a must-read dissertation for those who face this issue.  The Court otherwise considered whether there was sufficient motivation to combine various features.

The patent at issue concerns dosing regimens of long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications.  Teva filed an ANDA, which triggered an infringement lawsuit brought by Janssen.  Teva stipulated to infringement, but challenged the patent as invalid on multiple grounds.

READ MORE

ALSO THIS WEEK

Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1428 (Fed. Cir. July 7, 2025)

In an appeal from a jury trial finding non-infringement of Egenera’s virtual networking patent by Cisco’s Unified Computing System or “UCS” products, the Federal Circuit affirmed.  Egenera presented a laundry list of reasons the district court had purportedly erred—including in granting summary judgment of non-infringement of certain patent claims, denying judgment as a matter of law on others, and denying Egenera’s motion for a new trial—all of which were rejected by the reviewing panel.  The Court most prominently discussed the grant of summary judgment, which the parties had presented in the lower court and on appeal as implicating only a factual question concerning the sufficiency of Egenera’s proof.  On review, the panel opined that the real dispute had actually been over proper construction of the phrase “emulate Ethernet functionality” in the asserted claims.  However, because neither party presented that claim construction dispute to the district court or raised it on appeal—indeed, Egenera expressly denied that its arguments depended on construction of the “emulate” term—the Federal Circuit declined to review any unresolved issue of claim construction that may have underpinned the district court’s order, and affirmed the grant of summary judgment.

READ MORE

Editors:

Nika Aldrich, Intellectual Property Litigation Group Leader, Schwabe

Jason A. Wrubleski, Shareholder