In two opinions by the same panel concerning the same three
patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit relied in
part on post-priority evidence in affirming both the district
court's and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's
(PTAB's) holdings that claims directed to dosing regimens were
obvious. Yeda Research & Dev. Co. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc.,
Case Nos. 17-1594, -1595, -1596 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2018)
(Reyna, J); In re Copaxone Consol. Cases, Case No. 17-1575
(Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2018) (Reyna, J).
Yeda is the assignee (and Teva is the new drug application
holder) of three patents concerning a dosing regimen for a prior
art treatment for multiple sclerosis called
Copaxone® (glatiramer acetate). The claims of the
patents recite a method involving three subcutaneous injections of
40 mg of Copaxone over a period of seven days with at least one day
in between each injection. The claims of the patents were found
invalid by a district court during litigation and by
