In a recently published article on JD Supra, the U.S. Federal Circuit is closely monitoring legal developments around patent law. Specifically, the question of whether pending, non-final litigation or Inter Partes Review (IPR) processes can negate intent to infringe if there’s already substantive evidence supporting such intentions.
The focal point of this legal discussion is the case of UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION v. LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. [OPINION] (22-2217, 7/24/23) (Lourie, Dyk, and Stoll). Their Honours Lourie, Dyk, and Stoll of the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s validity and infringement findings, reinforcing the court’s original ruling.
Interestingly, this case raises several nuances about patent laws. One aspect being questioned was the requirement of the claim limitation “treating pulmonary hypertension” with its need for a confirmation of safety and efficacy. As put forward in court, the confirmation of safety and efficacy was not required in the term’s construction.
The decision in the UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION v. LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES case sets an intriguing precedent for future patent-related matters. Current legal matters still in progress, including litigation or IPR, do not necessarily dispose of any claims or arguments of infringement intent, especially if there is significant evidence demonstrating such intent.
Legal professionals and entities worldwide grappling with similar patent infringement issues should be mindful of such developments, as this could influence their strategic decisions, particularly when dealing in complex fields like bio-medical technology.