Gideon Korrell

In July 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a significant ruling in Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. The case centered on U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906, which protects specific dosing regimens for long-acting injectable forms of paliperidone palmitate, an antipsychotic used in treating schizophrenia.   Legal analyst Gideon Korrell highlights why this decision matters: the court upheld the patent’s validity, rejected Teva’s arguments on obviousness, and clarified how the “overlapping-range presumption” applies in pharmaceutical dosing cases.   Background of the Case 2018 : Janssen sued Teva under the Hatch-Waxman Act, claiming Teva’s generic application infringed the ’906 patent. Teva admitted infringement but argued the patent was invalid due to obviousness. After a bench trial, the district court sided with Janssen.   The case reached the Federal Circuit twice, with the latest appeal decided in July 2025. The central question was whether Janssen...

In July 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a significant ruling in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (CSI). The court affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) findings that most claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,956,371 were unpatentable, but also reversed the PTAB’s only finding of non-obviousness, holding that claim 5 was invalid as well. Gideon Korrell highlights that this decision not only reshapes the scope of the Shockwave patent but also clarifies the role of applicant-admitted prior art (AAPA) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The ruling further refines how general knowledge may be applied in obviousness determinations under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Background of the Case The ’371 patent, owned by Shockwave Medical, covers an angioplasty catheter using electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL). Traditionally used to break up kidney stones, this technology was adapted to treat hardened plaque in blood vessels. CSI filed an IPR challenging all 17 claims. The...

In a landmark decision for pharmaceutical patent litigation, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906 (“the ’906 patent”) in Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc . , Nos. 25-1228, 25-1252 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2025). The court confirmed that the patent, which covers specific dosing regimens for long-acting injectable paliperidone palmitate , is not invalid for obviousness.   Gideon Korrell highlights the importance of this ruling, noting its detailed examination of when a presumption of obviousness may apply in pharmaceutical dosing—a context very different from traditional applications in alloys or manufacturing.   Background and Procedural History ·          Initial Lawsuit: Janssen sued Teva in 2018, claiming infringement under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Teva admitted infringement but challenged the patent’s validity on obviousness grounds and raised indefiniteness claims on c...

In a significant ruling, the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s $18.5 million verdict in Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Company LLC , highlighting evolving standards in design patent claim scope and trademark infringement evidence. Gideon Korrell considers this decision noteworthy for three key reasons: the prosecution history disclaimer applies to design patents, the accused product fell within the surrendered scope, and trademark infringement evidence failed under the likelihood-of-confusion standard. Background: Oversized Hoodies and the D788 Design Patent Cozy Comfort sells a popular oversized wearable blanket called “The Comfy,” protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D859,788 (“D788 patent”) and two federal trademark registrations. Top Brand markets similar products under brands like “Tirrinia” and “Catalonia” through Amazon and other platforms. Cozy Comfort claimed that seven of Top Brand’s product lines infringed both its design patent and trademarks. Initially, the jury sided...

The Federal Circuit's July 18, 2025, ruling in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve , LLC reversed a $106 million jury verdict. The court found that Colibri’s infringement claim under the doctrine of equivalents was blocked by prosecution history estoppel . Gideon Korrell , a seasoned legal expert, highlights how this decision offers a critical reminder about the impact of cancelled claims in patent litigation. What Was the Case About? The case revolved around U.S. Patent No. 8,900,294, which described a method for implanting a collapsible and expandable heart valve. A key feature of the invention was a “do-over” mechanism, allowing the device to be partially deployed and repositioned if necessary.   During prosecution, Colibri originally submitted two versions of the valve deployment method:   ·          One method claimed to push  the valve out of the sheath. ·        ...