The Supreme Court’s decision to review Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma Inc. places renewed attention on a familiar but unsettled issue in pharmaceutical patent law: how the induced infringement doctrine applies when a generic drug launches with a concededly “skinny” label, but engages in broader marketing and communications outside the FDA-approved label.

Although the case arises under the Hatch-Waxman Act, it squarely implicates the scope and enforceability of method-of-use patents, particularly for later-developed indications that often represent substantial additional investment by brand-name manufacturers.

The Federal government is accelerating AI‑enabled innovation by launching the Genesis Mission, a sweeping national initiative to accelerate scientific discovery using artificial intelligence. The goal of the Mission is to “build an integrated AI platform to harness Federal scientific datasets…to train scientific foundation models and create AI agents to test new hypotheses, automate research workflows, and accelerate scientific breakthroughs.” Under the leadership of the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, the Department of Energy will implement the Mission.

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision last week in Inland Diamond Prods. Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc., offers an important reminder for patent litigators: a PTAB’s factual finding in an inter partes review (IPR) does not automatically bind a district court. The case underscores that issue preclusion has clear boundaries when different forums apply different standards of proof.

Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be a straightforward threshold question: any “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” is eligible for protection. Yet over time, this once-clear principle has become anything but.

Although the statute itself has remained unchanged for two centuries, its interpretation has evolved dramatically through judicial decisions. And it is this common law precedent that has shaped the approach to the determination of patent subject matter eligibility.

For many patent cases, the United States District Court hearing your patent dispute can have a big impact on case strategy, budget and management, and even, to some extent, case outcomes. As we discussed earlier this year, how a patent owner approaches an alleged infringer can turn into a costly and inconvenient endeavor if forced to defend their patents in an unexpected jurisdiction. A recent case out of the District of Arizona illustrates the opposite scenario – where the activities of an accused infringer results in a suboptimal venue for that defendant.

The practice of serially filing continuation applications through a patent’s lifetime has come under increased pressure in recent years from newly implemented continuing application fees to expanded case law on non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting. A somewhat new interpretations of the doctrine of prosecution laches emerging from Sonos, Inc. v. Google…

Method-of-treatment (“MoT”) claims can be powerful tools for pharmaceutical companies seeking to extend market exclusivity for their products after the original composition-of-matter patents expire. However, the District of Delaware’s recent decision in Novo Nordisk v. Mylan is another reminder that the scope of method of treatment claims must be aligned with an FDA approved drug label. 

The U.S. gave crypto one of its biggest regulatory jolts in years.  With the signing of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (“GENIUS”) Act stablecoins now have a legal framework. The GENIUS Act is part of a broader push to accelerate the development of emerging technologies in the U.S., from artificial intelligence to quantum computing. That same push is showing up in the patent world, where the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) are beginning to clarify how blockchain-related inventions can clear long-standing Section 101 hurdles.

On August 11, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the District of Utah’s ruling that all but one of the claims in PowerBlock Holdings, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 7,578,771 were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. PowerBlock Holdings, Inc., v. iFit, Inc. (“Appellate Op.”). In September 2023, the District Court found all but claim 19 failed the Alice test as they did not “add significantly more than the abstract idea of the end-result of an automated sectorized dumbbell. PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc., 2023 WL 6377781, at *7 (D. Utah Sept. 29, 2023) (“Trial Op.”). The claims at issue are generally directed to an adjustable dumbbell system that uses an electric motor to couple additional weights to the dumbbell—allowing the user to increase or decrease the weight automatically. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed the matter de novo.

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a $4.7M verdict in a patent lawsuit involving two patents concerning next-generation sequencing methods—U.S. Patent Nos. 10,017,810 and 10,450,597. Both patents concern DNA preparation using different types of primers: “target-specific primers” that bind to regions of interest in the genome and other primers or adaptors…