May 5, 2020
Authored and Edited by Michelle (Yongyuan) Rice; Kara Specht; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Argentum Pharm. LLC v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. 2018-2273 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2020), the Federal Circuit dismissed Argentum’s appeal from a PTAB decision, finding that Argentum failed to show “injury in fact” required for Article III standing.
Argentum joined an IPR challenging a Novartis patent covering Gilenya®. After the Board found the challenged claims not unpatentable, petitioners appealed to the Federal Circuit. All petitioners other than Argentum subsequently settled with the Patent Owner, leaving Argentum as the only appellant.
Attempting to establish injury-in-fact required to establish standing, Argentum presented three arguments. Argentum first argued it faces a real and imminent “threat of litigation” by Novartis, based on the argument that Argentum was jointly pursuing, with its partner KVK, a generic copy of Gilenya® in connection with an ANDA, which they were in the process of filing. The Court rejected this argument because any future ANDA filing would be by KVK, and therefore KVK, not Argentum, would risk being sued. Second, Argentum argued it will incur economic injury in pursuing a generic copy of Gilenya® and filing an ANDA. The Court rejected Argentum’s economic injury argument, finding Argentum failed to show investments specific to a generic copy of Gilenya® or an ANDA, and therefore Argentum’s alleged loss was “conclusory and speculative.” Third, Argentum argued that estoppel under § 315(e) satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement. The Court also rejected Argentum’s estoppel argument, noting that it previously had concluded that invocation of the estoppel provision is not sufficient to establish standing. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Argentum’s appeal for lack of standing.
For more discussion on Article III standing, please see Navigating Evolving Standing Requirements for Appeals from the PTAB.
Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 19, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.