Influential Updates in U.S. Patent Law: Key Decisions and Strategic Takeaways for Pharma & Biotech

The program, hosted by IPEssentia, will be held at 9:30 a.m. IST on November 16, 2026.
Please visit this webpage to learn more and to register.

At this one-hour webinar, Taft partner Roshan P. Shrestha, Ph.D., will discuss significant U.S. patent decisions and their implications for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The program will examine how courts have addressed induced infringement, skinny labels, written description, obviousness, and prior art, with a focus on practical considerations for patent prosecution, litigation, and generic market entry.

Participants will gain insights into assessing labeling and promotional risks, developing evidence of infringement, supporting chemical and antibody-related claims, and addressing patentability challenges involving treatment regimens and manufacturing processes.

Cases to be discussed during this program include:

• Hikma v. Amarin — Induced infringement and skinny labels, including the role of public statements and promotional materials in assessing whether a generic manufacturer encourages a patented use.

• Corcept Therapeutics v. Teva — The relationship between proposed label language, claimed dosing regimens, and evidence that physicians will practice the patented methods.

• In re Xencor, Inc. — Written description support for antibody treatment claims, including limitations appearing in claim preambles.

• Duke University v. Sandoz — The disclosure needed to support a claimed chemical subgenus within a broader genus.

• Teva v. Eli Lilly — Written description and enablement of antibody treatment methods, including the significance of existing technical knowledge and established antibody-development techniques.

• Exelixis v. MSN — Written description support for crystalline salt claims and the role of structural features shared across a claimed genus.

• Merck v. Hopewell — Inventive-entity attribution, the treatment of earlier disclosures as prior art, and obviousness challenges to dosing regimens.

• Knoa v. Accord Healthcare — Manufacturing-process obviousness, the use of familiar equipment, and the importance of aligning evidence of unmet need with claim scope.