A Better Newspaper

## Overview The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in *Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Company*, reversing the District of Massachusetts's grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of invalidity of Teva's headache treatment patents (IPWatchdog, April 2026). ## Lower Court Ruling The District of Massachusetts found that Teva's asserted claims were invalid for failing to satisfy both the **written description** and **enablement** requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The district court granted JMOL of invalidity following trial. ## CAFC's Reversal The Federal Circuit reversed, distinguishing the facts from its prior precedential decision in *Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi* — the landmark 2023 Supreme Court decision that tightened enablement standards for broad genus claims in the biologics context. The CAFC found the district court had misapplied the *Amgen* framework (IPWatchdog, April 2026). ## Legal Significance **Distinguishing Amgen:** - *Amgen* involved broadly claimed antibody genus claims requiring undue experimentation to practice across the full scope - The Teva case apparently involved a different claim structure or specification disclosure that the CAFC found satisfied § 112 requirements under proper analysis - This distinction is critical: post-*Amgen*, district courts have been aggressive in invalidating broad pharma/biotech claims; the CAFC is now calibrating the boundaries **Implications for Patent Practitioners:** - Establishes that *Amgen* does not categorically doom all broad pharma patent claims at trial - JMOL of invalidity at the district court level on written description/enablement grounds remains reversible where the trial record supports the patentee - May encourage pharma patentees to take broader claims to trial rather than settling or narrowing pre-suit **Headache/CGRP Treatment Market:** - The patents at issue relate to headache treatments — likely in the CGRP antibody space where both Teva (Ajovy) and Eli Lilly (Emgality) compete - The reversal protects Teva's market position against Lilly's invalidity challenge ## Key Procedural Posture - Decision is **precedential** — binding on future CAFC panels - Case returns to district court; further proceedings expected