直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: October 2025

November 26, 2025

By Matthew C. Berntsen; *Xu Wang

This is part of a series of articles discussing recent orders of interest issued in patent cases by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.


In Radius Health, Inc. v. Orbicular Pharmaceutical Technologies Private Limited, Cipla Limited, and Cipla USA Inc., No. 24-cv-11770, Judge Stearns issued a claim construction order construing two claim terms from a patent directed to beta-Asp10 isomers of abaloparatide and pharmaceutical compositions containing these isomers.

First, the parties disputed whether “an isomer of abaloparatide” encompassed only a single isomer (urged by Defendants), as opposed to one or more isomers (urged by Plaintiff). The Court applied the general rule that the term “an” in a patent claim carries the meaning of “one or more” and noted that there was no clear intent by the patent applicant to limit “an” to only a single instance. Accordingly, the Court construed “an isomer of abaloparatide” to mean “one or more isomers of abaloparatide.”

The second disputed term was “formulated drug product.” Plaintiff proposed “a formulation in which an active pharmaceutical ingredient has been formulated in an aqueous vehicle suitable for drug delivery,” while Defendants argued it means “a formulation that may comprise one or more additional components beyond an active pharmaceutical ingredient.” The Court observed that the specification defines “formulated abaloparatide drug product” as “an abaloparatide formulation in which the abaloparatide [active pharmaceutical ingredient] has been formulated in an aqueous vehicle suitable for drug delivery,” and that a “formulated drug product” without the abaloparatide requirement logically follows the same definition. The Court further observed that other definitions within the specification confirmed this construction. Accordingly, the Court construed “formulated drug product” as “a formulation in which an active pharmaceutical ingredient has been formulated in an aqueous vehicle suitable for drug delivery.”

Tags

Article Series: D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update, District of Massachusetts, claim construction

Related Practices

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Patent Litigation and Trials

Related Industries

Life Sciences

Pharmaceutical

Related Offices

Boston, MA

Related Professionals

Matthew C. Berntsen
Partner
Boston, MA
+1 617 646 1618
Email

*Xu Wang is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.

Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.

Related Insights

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

Georgia Life Sciences Summit 2026

August 25-26, 2026

Sandy Springs

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP