Duke University v. Sandoz Inc. (Fed. Cir., November 18, 2025) 2024-1078

This episode regards an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Duke University v. Sandoz Inc., decided on November 18, 2025. The core issue is an appeal from Sandoz regarding a lower court's judgment that upheld the validity of claim 30 of U.S Patent No. 9,579,270, which relates to using specific prostaglandin F analogs for treating hair loss. Duke University and Allergan Sales, LLC, the owners of the patent, had previously won a jury trial finding that Sandoz failed to prove the claim was invalid for lack of adequate written description and were awarded $39 million in damages. The Federal Circuit Court reversed the district court's judgment, concluding that no reasonable jury could have found that the patent specification provided a sufficient written description to lead a skilled artisan to the claimed subgenus of chemical compounds, especially since the patent's description was overly broad and failed to include sufficient "blaze marks" to define the specific invention.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.