{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cafc-24-1094-2026-09-30",
    "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cafc-24-1094-2026-09-30)",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-10-04",
    "fingerprint": "ewai:se:d79eaf",
    "proof": "sha256:d2d627e5311a5260b3e5f5c8389c8dd33b93260d8ecdb6b09bd679920649641a",
    "jurisdiction": "se",
    "lang": "en",
    "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal",
    "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"
  },
  "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot",
  "brand": {
    "product": "NovaCopilot",
    "platform": "ExploreWorldAI",
    "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal",
    "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB",
    "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot",
    "source": "Source: NovaCopilot",
    "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor",
    "contact": "stig@valkiv.com"
  },
  "item": {
    "schema_version": "1.0.0",
    "id": "us:cafc-24-1094-2026-09-30",
    "jurisdiction": "us",
    "lang": "en",
    "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot",
    "brand": {
      "product": "NovaCopilot",
      "platform": "ExploreWorldAI",
      "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal",
      "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
      "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB",
      "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot",
      "source": "Source: NovaCopilot",
      "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot",
      "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor",
      "contact": "stig@valkiv.com"
    },
    "sections": [
      {
        "title": "United States Court of Appeals",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_2",
          "para_3"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_5"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Plaintiffs-Appellants",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_7",
          "para_8"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Defendant-Appellee",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_10"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "2024-1094",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_12"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Appeal from the United States District Court for the",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "District of Massachusetts in No. 1:18-cv-12029-ADB, Judge",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_15",
          "para_16"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_18",
          "para_19"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "DC, filed a petition for rehearing en banc for appellee. Also",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_21"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "CHASE, DANIELLE ANDREA DUSZCZYSZYN, J. MICHAEL",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_23",
          "para_24",
          "para_25"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Case: 24-1094 Document: 100 Page: 1 Filed: 09/30/2026",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_27"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "2",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_30",
          "para_31",
          "para_32",
          "para_33"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, STOLL, CUNNINGHAM, and",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "STARK, Circuit Judges,1 and ANDREWS, District Judge.2",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "DYK, Circuit Judge, dissents from the denial of the peti-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_37",
          "para_38"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "O R D E R",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Eli Lilly and Company filed a petition for rehearing en",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_41",
          "para_42",
          "para_43"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "IPSEN Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck Sharp &",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Dohme LLC, Amgen Inc., Sanofi S.A., Johnson & Johnson",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Nagra USA, Inc., Dennis Burton, David Manuta and Bar-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_47",
          "para_48"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The petition was first referred as a petition to the panel",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_50",
          "para_51",
          "para_52",
          "para_53",
          "para_54",
          "para_55",
          "para_56",
          "para_57",
          "para_58",
          "para_59"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Case: 24-1094 Document: 100 Page: 2 Filed: 09/30/2026",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_61"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "3",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "IT IS ORDERED THAT:",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_65",
          "para_66"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "September 30, 2026",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Date",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "FOR THE COURT",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Case: 24-1094 Document: 100 Page: 3 Filed: 09/30/2026",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "United States Court of Appeals",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_72",
          "para_73"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_75"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Plaintiffs-Appellants",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_77",
          "para_78"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Defendant-Appellee",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_80"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "2024-1094",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_82"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Appeal from the United States District Court for the",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "District of Massachusetts in No. 1:18-cv-12029-ADB, Judge",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_85",
          "para_86"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting from denial of petition for",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_88"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "I respectfully dissent from the court’s denial of en banc",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_90",
          "para_91",
          "para_92",
          "para_93",
          "para_94",
          "para_95"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "I",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "The claims at issue are claim 30 of U.S. Patent",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_98"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Case: 24-1094 Document: 100 Page: 4 Filed: 09/30/2026",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_100"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "2",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Patent No. 9,884,907, of which claim 30 of the ’045 patent",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_104"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Co., 172 F.4th 1367, 1372 & n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2026). Claim 30",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_106",
          "para_107",
          "para_108",
          "para_109",
          "para_110",
          "para_111"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Thus, the claim recites two functional limitations:",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "(1) an antagonist limitation requiring a “humanized mono-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_114",
          "para_115",
          "para_116",
          "para_117",
          "para_118",
          "para_119",
          "para_120",
          "para_121",
          "para_122",
          "para_123",
          "para_124",
          "para_125"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "At the same time, the undisputed record shows that the",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_127",
          "para_128",
          "para_129",
          "para_130",
          "para_131",
          "para_132"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "(months) and money (tens of thousands of dollars per anti-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_134"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "1 Citations to “J.A.” refer to the Corrected Non-Con-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_136",
          "para_137"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Case: 24-1094 Document: 100 Page: 5 Filed: 09/30/2026",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_139"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "3",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_142",
          "para_143",
          "para_144",
          "para_145",
          "para_146",
          "para_147",
          "para_148",
          "para_149",
          "para_150"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The opinion indeed recognizes that “if the asserted",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_152",
          "para_153",
          "para_154"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "172 F.4th at 1381. In Amgen, the Supreme Court ex-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_156",
          "para_157",
          "para_158",
          "para_159"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The panel nonetheless concludes that this case is dif-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_161"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "CGRP antagonist antibodies were “well known”—even if",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_163",
          "para_164"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "172 F.4th at 1380–82. It was only well known that such a",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_166",
          "para_167",
          "para_168",
          "para_169",
          "para_170",
          "para_171",
          "para_172",
          "para_173",
          "para_174",
          "para_175",
          "para_176"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Case: 24-1094 Document: 100 Page: 6 Filed: 09/30/2026",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_178"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "4",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Second, the panel opinion examines the scope of the as-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_182",
          "para_183",
          "para_184",
          "para_185",
          "para_186"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The panel thus treats the claimed headache-treatment",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_188",
          "para_189",
          "para_190",
          "para_191",
          "para_192",
          "para_193",
          "para_194",
          "para_195",
          "para_196",
          "para_197",
          "para_198",
          "para_199",
          "para_200",
          "para_201",
          "para_202"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Inc., 687 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “[A] patentee",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_204",
          "para_205",
          "para_206"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "In order for a person of ordinary skill in the art to prac-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_208",
          "para_209"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Claiming a method of use that depends on a recited compo-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_211",
          "para_212",
          "para_213",
          "para_214",
          "para_215",
          "para_216",
          "para_217"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Case: 24-1094 Document: 100 Page: 7 Filed: 09/30/2026",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_219"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "5",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "II",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "As amici note, the opinion creates an “end-run around",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Amgen” and has resulted in guidance urging patent practi-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_225",
          "para_226"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Johnson and Nagra USA LLC at 10–12, Dkt. No. 91. In",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Amgen itself, the principal use of the claimed PCSK9-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_229"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "598 U.S. at 598–99. The Supreme Court held that the ge-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_231",
          "para_232",
          "para_233",
          "para_234"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "PCSK9-blocking antibodies were not useful if not used for",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_236",
          "para_237",
          "para_238"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Amici representing the pharmaceutical industry, not",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_240",
          "para_241",
          "para_242",
          "para_243",
          "para_244",
          "para_245"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Dkt. No. 86, and that “[a]llowing this type of method claim",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_247",
          "para_248",
          "para_249"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Johnson and Nagra USA LLC at 14. Amgen and Sanofi",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_251",
          "para_252",
          "para_253",
          "para_254",
          "para_255"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "I respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_257"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Case: 24-1094 Document: 100 Page: 8 Filed: 09/30/2026",
        "paragraphs": []
      }
    ],
    "paragraphs": [
      {
        "text": "United States Court of Appeals",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1"
      },
      {
        "text": "for the Federal Circuit",
        "paragraph_id": "para_2"
      },
      {
        "text": "______________________",
        "paragraph_id": "para_3"
      },
      {
        "text": "TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL",
        "paragraph_id": "para_4"
      },
      {
        "text": "GMBH, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_5"
      },
      {
        "text": "Plaintiffs-Appellants",
        "paragraph_id": "para_6"
      },
      {
        "text": "v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_7"
      },
      {
        "text": "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_8"
      },
      {
        "text": "Defendant-Appellee",
        "paragraph_id": "para_9"
      },
      {
        "text": "______________________",
        "paragraph_id": "para_10"
      },
      {
        "text": "2024-1094",
        "paragraph_id": "para_11"
      },
      {
        "text": "______________________",
        "paragraph_id": "para_12"
      },
      {
        "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court for the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_13"
      },
      {
        "text": "District of Massachusetts in No. 1:18-cv-12029-ADB, Judge",
        "paragraph_id": "para_14"
      },
      {
        "text": "Allison Dale Burroughs.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_15"
      },
      {
        "text": "______________________",
        "paragraph_id": "para_16"
      },
      {
        "text": "ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC",
        "paragraph_id": "para_17"
      },
      {
        "text": "______________________",
        "paragraph_id": "para_18"
      },
      {
        "text": "JEFFREY A. LAMKEN, MoloLamken LLP, Washington,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_19"
      },
      {
        "text": "DC, filed a petition for rehearing en banc for appellee. Also",
        "paragraph_id": "para_20"
      },
      {
        "text": "represented by KAYVON GHAYOUMI; CHARLES COLLINS-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_21"
      },
      {
        "text": "CHASE, DANIELLE ANDREA DUSZCZYSZYN, J. MICHAEL",
        "paragraph_id": "para_22"
      },
      {
        "text": "JAKES, WILLIAM BARRETT RAICH, Finnegan, Henderson,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_23"
      },
      {
        "text": "Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_24"
      },
      {
        "text": "KEVIN P. MARTIN, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_25"
      },
      {
        "text": "Case: 24-1094 Document: 100 Page: 1 Filed: 09/30/2026",
        "paragraph_id": "para_26"
      },
      {
        "text": "TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_27"
      },
      {
        "text": "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY",
        "paragraph_id": "para_28"
      },
      {
        "text": "2",
        "paragraph_id": "para_29"
      },
      {
        "text": "filed a response for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented",
        "paragraph_id": "para_30"
      },
      {
        "text": "by ELAINE BLAIS; GABRIEL FERRANTE, New York, NY.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_31"
      },
      {
        "text": "______________________",
        "paragraph_id": "para_32"
      },
      {
        "text": "Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE, DYK, PROST, REYNA,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_33"
      },
      {
        "text": "TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, STOLL, CUNNINGHAM, and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_34"
      },
      {
        "text": "STARK, Circuit Judges,1 and ANDREWS, District Judge.2",
        "paragraph_id": "para_35"
      },
      {
        "text": "DYK, Circuit Judge, dissents from the denial of the peti-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_36"
      },
      {
        "text": "tion for rehearing en banc.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_37"
      },
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_38"
      },
      {
        "text": "O R D E R",
        "paragraph_id": "para_39"
      },
      {
        "text": "Eli Lilly and Company filed a petition for rehearing en",
        "paragraph_id": "para_40"
      },
      {
        "text": "banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court",
        "paragraph_id": "para_41"
      },
      {
        "text": "and filed by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva",
        "paragraph_id": "para_42"
      },
      {
        "text": "Pharmaceuticals International GmbH.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_43"
      },
      {
        "text": "IPSEN Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck Sharp &",
        "paragraph_id": "para_44"
      },
      {
        "text": "Dohme LLC, Amgen Inc., Sanofi S.A., Johnson & Johnson",
        "paragraph_id": "para_45"
      },
      {
        "text": "Nagra USA, Inc., Dennis Burton, David Manuta and Bar-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_46"
      },
      {
        "text": "bara Ruskin moved for leave to file briefs as amicus curiae,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_47"
      },
      {
        "text": "which the court granted.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_48"
      },
      {
        "text": "The petition was first referred as a petition to the panel",
        "paragraph_id": "para_49"
      },
      {
        "text": "that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition was re-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_50"
      },
      {
        "text": "ferred to the circuit judges who are in regular active ser-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_51"
      },
      {
        "text": "vice. The court conducted a poll on request, and the poll",
        "paragraph_id": "para_52"
      },
      {
        "text": "failed.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_53"
      },
      {
        "text": "Upon consideration thereof,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_54"
      },
      {
        "text": "1 Circuit Judge Newman did not participate.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_55"
      },
      {
        "text": "2 Honorable Richard G. Andrews, District Judge,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_56"
      },
      {
        "text": "United States District Court for the District of Delaware,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_57"
      },
      {
        "text": "sitting by designation, participated only in the decision on",
        "paragraph_id": "para_58"
      },
      {
        "text": "the petition for panel rehearing.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_59"
      },
      {
        "text": "Case: 24-1094 Document: 100 Page: 2 Filed: 09/30/2026",
        "paragraph_id": "para_60"
      },
      {
        "text": "TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_61"
      },
      {
        "text": "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY",
        "paragraph_id": "para_62"
      },
      {
        "text": "3",
        "paragraph_id": "para_63"
      },
      {
        "text": "IT IS ORDERED THAT:",
        "paragraph_id": "para_64"
      },
      {
        "text": "The petition for panel rehearing is denied.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_65"
      },
      {
        "text": "The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_66"
      },
      {
        "text": "September 30, 2026",
        "paragraph_id": "para_67"
      },
      {
        "text": "Date",
        "paragraph_id": "para_68"
      },
      {
        "text": "FOR THE COURT",
        "paragraph_id": "para_69"
      },
      {
        "text": "Case: 24-1094 Document: 100 Page: 3 Filed: 09/30/2026",
        "paragraph_id": "para_70"
      },
      {
        "text": "United States Court of Appeals",
        "paragraph_id": "para_71"
      },
      {
        "text": "for the Federal Circuit",
        "paragraph_id": "para_72"
      },
      {
        "text": "______________________",
        "paragraph_id": "para_73"
      },
      {
        "text": "TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL",
        "paragraph_id": "para_74"
      },
      {
        "text": "GMBH, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_75"
      },
      {
        "text": "Plaintiffs-Appellants",
        "paragraph_id": "para_76"
      },
      {
        "text": "v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_77"
      },
      {
        "text": "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_78"
      },
      {
        "text": "Defendant-Appellee",
        "paragraph_id": "para_79"
      },
      {
        "text": "______________________",
        "paragraph_id": "para_80"
      },
      {
        "text": "2024-1094",
        "paragraph_id": "para_81"
      },
      {
        "text": "______________________",
        "paragraph_id": "para_82"
      },
      {
        "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court for the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_83"
      },
      {
        "text": "District of Massachusetts in No. 1:18-cv-12029-ADB, Judge",
        "paragraph_id": "para_84"
      },
      {
        "text": "Allison Dale Burroughs.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_85"
      },
      {
        "text": "______________________",
        "paragraph_id": "para_86"
      },
      {
        "text": "DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting from denial of petition for",
        "paragraph_id": "para_87"
      },
      {
        "text": "rehearing en banc.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_88"
      },
      {
        "text": "I respectfully dissent from the court’s denial of en banc",
        "paragraph_id": "para_89"
      },
      {
        "text": "rehearing. This case presents important questions as to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_90"
      },
      {
        "text": "the scope of the enablement requirement for method",
        "paragraph_id": "para_91"
      },
      {
        "text": "claims. The panel’s holding creates confusion as to the en-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_92"
      },
      {
        "text": "ablement standards for method claims, will undermine",
        "paragraph_id": "para_93"
      },
      {
        "text": "medical innovation by sustaining overly broad claims, and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_94"
      },
      {
        "text": "is contrary to Supreme Court enablement precedent.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_95"
      },
      {
        "text": "I",
        "paragraph_id": "para_96"
      },
      {
        "text": "The claims at issue are claim 30 of U.S. Patent",
        "paragraph_id": "para_97"
      },
      {
        "text": "No. 8,586,045 (the “’045 patent”) and claims 5 and 6 of U.S.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_98"
      },
      {
        "text": "Case: 24-1094 Document: 100 Page: 4 Filed: 09/30/2026",
        "paragraph_id": "para_99"
      },
      {
        "text": "TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_100"
      },
      {
        "text": "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY",
        "paragraph_id": "para_101"
      },
      {
        "text": "2",
        "paragraph_id": "para_102"
      },
      {
        "text": "Patent No. 9,884,907, of which claim 30 of the ’045 patent",
        "paragraph_id": "para_103"
      },
      {
        "text": "is representative. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly &",
        "paragraph_id": "para_104"
      },
      {
        "text": "Co., 172 F.4th 1367, 1372 & n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2026). Claim 30",
        "paragraph_id": "para_105"
      },
      {
        "text": "recites a “method for reducing incidence of or treating",
        "paragraph_id": "para_106"
      },
      {
        "text": "headache in a human, comprising administering to the hu-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_107"
      },
      {
        "text": "man an effective amount of an anti-CGRP antagonist anti-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_108"
      },
      {
        "text": "body, wherein said anti-CGRP antagonist antibody is a . . .",
        "paragraph_id": "para_109"
      },
      {
        "text": "humanized monoclonal antibody.” Id. at 1372 (omission in",
        "paragraph_id": "para_110"
      },
      {
        "text": "original) (quoting ’045 patent claims 17, 30).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_111"
      },
      {
        "text": "Thus, the claim recites two functional limitations:",
        "paragraph_id": "para_112"
      },
      {
        "text": "(1) an antagonist limitation requiring a “humanized mono-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_113"
      },
      {
        "text": "clonal antibody” that functions as an “anti-CGRP antago-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_114"
      },
      {
        "text": "nist,” and (2) a treatment limitation in which",
        "paragraph_id": "para_115"
      },
      {
        "text": "administering the antibody reduces or treats headache.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_116"
      },
      {
        "text": "’045 patent claims 17, 30. The difficulty of identifying the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_117"
      },
      {
        "text": "relevant compounds lies in the first limitation, not the sec-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_118"
      },
      {
        "text": "ond limitation. This is so because the second limitation",
        "paragraph_id": "para_119"
      },
      {
        "text": "adds nothing of substance to the first limitation. As the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_120"
      },
      {
        "text": "panel opinion recognizes, any member of the genus of hu-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_121"
      },
      {
        "text": "manized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies would be effec-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_122"
      },
      {
        "text": "tive for treating headache. Teva, 172 F.4th at 1381 (“[T]he",
        "paragraph_id": "para_123"
      },
      {
        "text": "specification disclosed that all such antibodies work for",
        "paragraph_id": "para_124"
      },
      {
        "text": "that purpose.”).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_125"
      },
      {
        "text": "At the same time, the undisputed record shows that the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_126"
      },
      {
        "text": "difficulty of identifying compounds with antagonist proper-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_127"
      },
      {
        "text": "ties (the first limitation) was considerable. The evidence",
        "paragraph_id": "para_128"
      },
      {
        "text": "established that there were a large number of species with",
        "paragraph_id": "para_129"
      },
      {
        "text": "potential antagonist properties; that identification and hu-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_130"
      },
      {
        "text": "manization of anti-CGRP antibodies required laboratory",
        "paragraph_id": "para_131"
      },
      {
        "text": "benchtop and animal testing at substantial costs of time",
        "paragraph_id": "para_132"
      },
      {
        "text": "(months) and money (tens of thousands of dollars per anti-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_133"
      },
      {
        "text": "body). E.g., J.A. 1344, 4227.1 The panel explicitly assumes",
        "paragraph_id": "para_134"
      },
      {
        "text": "1 Citations to “J.A.” refer to the Corrected Non-Con-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_135"
      },
      {
        "text": "fidential Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_136"
      },
      {
        "text": "Dkt. No. 36.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_137"
      },
      {
        "text": "Case: 24-1094 Document: 100 Page: 5 Filed: 09/30/2026",
        "paragraph_id": "para_138"
      },
      {
        "text": "TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_139"
      },
      {
        "text": "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY",
        "paragraph_id": "para_140"
      },
      {
        "text": "3",
        "paragraph_id": "para_141"
      },
      {
        "text": "for this reason that the genus of anti-CGRP antagonist an-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_142"
      },
      {
        "text": "tibodies was not enabled. Teva, 172 F.4th at 1381 (“[W]e",
        "paragraph_id": "para_143"
      },
      {
        "text": "will assume that . . . the amount of time and expense re-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_144"
      },
      {
        "text": "quired to make (and humanize) all anti-CGRP antagonist",
        "paragraph_id": "para_145"
      },
      {
        "text": "antibodies would have constituted undue experimenta-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_146"
      },
      {
        "text": "tion . . . .”). A claim that requires undue experimentation",
        "paragraph_id": "para_147"
      },
      {
        "text": "is not enabled. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 736–37",
        "paragraph_id": "para_148"
      },
      {
        "text": "(Fed. Cir. 1988); Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Lab’ys,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_149"
      },
      {
        "text": "720 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2013).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_150"
      },
      {
        "text": "The opinion indeed recognizes that “if the asserted",
        "paragraph_id": "para_151"
      },
      {
        "text": "claims were to the genus of humanized anti-CGRP antago-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_152"
      },
      {
        "text": "nist antibodies themselves[,] . . . this case would resemble",
        "paragraph_id": "para_153"
      },
      {
        "text": "Amgen [Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023)].” Teva,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_154"
      },
      {
        "text": "172 F.4th at 1381. In Amgen, the Supreme Court ex-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_155"
      },
      {
        "text": "plained that to enable the full scope of a claimed genus of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_156"
      },
      {
        "text": "antibodies, a patentee must do more than define the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_157"
      },
      {
        "text": "screening process for identifying the antibody compositions",
        "paragraph_id": "para_158"
      },
      {
        "text": "that successfully bind to a target. 598 U.S. at 610, 614.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_159"
      },
      {
        "text": "The panel nonetheless concludes that this case is dif-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_160"
      },
      {
        "text": "ferent from Amgen for two reasons. First, because anti-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_161"
      },
      {
        "text": "CGRP antagonist antibodies were “well known”—even if",
        "paragraph_id": "para_162"
      },
      {
        "text": "not enabled—the panel holds that the specification enables",
        "paragraph_id": "para_163"
      },
      {
        "text": "the treatment of headache using such antibodies. Teva,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_164"
      },
      {
        "text": "172 F.4th at 1380–82. It was only well known that such a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_165"
      },
      {
        "text": "genus exists, but as the panel recognizes, the genus is “not,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_166"
      },
      {
        "text": "itself, the invention.” Id. at 1374. The invention required",
        "paragraph_id": "para_167"
      },
      {
        "text": "identification of the various antibody species with antago-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_168"
      },
      {
        "text": "nist qualities. It was not well known which antibody spe-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_169"
      },
      {
        "text": "cies had such antagonist qualities. It is established that a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_170"
      },
      {
        "text": "genus may be well known but the specific embodiments",
        "paragraph_id": "para_171"
      },
      {
        "text": "with the desired qualities are not enabled by knowledge of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_172"
      },
      {
        "text": "the genus. See Wyeth, 720 F.3d at 1383–86 (concluding",
        "paragraph_id": "para_173"
      },
      {
        "text": "that a class of compounds effective for treatment was",
        "paragraph_id": "para_174"
      },
      {
        "text": "known but that undisclosed individual species of the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_175"
      },
      {
        "text": "claimed genus were not enabled).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_176"
      },
      {
        "text": "Case: 24-1094 Document: 100 Page: 6 Filed: 09/30/2026",
        "paragraph_id": "para_177"
      },
      {
        "text": "TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_178"
      },
      {
        "text": "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY",
        "paragraph_id": "para_179"
      },
      {
        "text": "4",
        "paragraph_id": "para_180"
      },
      {
        "text": "Second, the panel opinion examines the scope of the as-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_181"
      },
      {
        "text": "serted claims and concludes that they “do not claim hu-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_182"
      },
      {
        "text": "manized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies themselves;",
        "paragraph_id": "para_183"
      },
      {
        "text": "instead, they claim only the use of such antibodies for the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_184"
      },
      {
        "text": "different, limited purpose of treating headache.” Teva,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_185"
      },
      {
        "text": "172 F.4th at 1381.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_186"
      },
      {
        "text": "The panel thus treats the claimed headache-treatment",
        "paragraph_id": "para_187"
      },
      {
        "text": "method as narrower than a claim to the underlying genus",
        "paragraph_id": "para_188"
      },
      {
        "text": "of antibodies and requires correspondingly narrower ena-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_189"
      },
      {
        "text": "blement. This simply makes no sense. Where the record",
        "paragraph_id": "para_190"
      },
      {
        "text": "does not suggest uses for the underlying compounds other",
        "paragraph_id": "para_191"
      },
      {
        "text": "than to treat headache, see J.A. 16410, 16447, the practical",
        "paragraph_id": "para_192"
      },
      {
        "text": "scope of the method claim is equal to the scope of the com-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_193"
      },
      {
        "text": "pound. The method claim here is not effectively narrower",
        "paragraph_id": "para_194"
      },
      {
        "text": "than the compound claim. Even if it were, the compound",
        "paragraph_id": "para_195"
      },
      {
        "text": "still must be enabled since the compound is indisputably a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_196"
      },
      {
        "text": "claim limitation. A patent “must enable the full scope of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_197"
      },
      {
        "text": "the invention as defined by its claims.” Amgen, 598 U.S.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_198"
      },
      {
        "text": "at 610. “This important doctrine prevents both inadequate",
        "paragraph_id": "para_199"
      },
      {
        "text": "disclosure of an invention and overbroad claiming that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_200"
      },
      {
        "text": "might otherwise attempt to cover more than was actually",
        "paragraph_id": "para_201"
      },
      {
        "text": "invented.” MagSil Corp. v. Hitachi Glob. Storage Techs.,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_202"
      },
      {
        "text": "Inc., 687 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “[A] patentee",
        "paragraph_id": "para_203"
      },
      {
        "text": "chooses broad claim language at the peril of losing any",
        "paragraph_id": "para_204"
      },
      {
        "text": "claim that cannot be enabled across its full scope of cover-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_205"
      },
      {
        "text": "age.” Id.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_206"
      },
      {
        "text": "In order for a person of ordinary skill in the art to prac-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_207"
      },
      {
        "text": "tice the whole claimed method, the patent would need to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_208"
      },
      {
        "text": "enable the recited anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_209"
      },
      {
        "text": "Claiming a method of use that depends on a recited compo-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_210"
      },
      {
        "text": "nent cannot excuse the enablement requirement of the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_211"
      },
      {
        "text": "component. Both the antagonist limitation and the treat-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_212"
      },
      {
        "text": "ment limitation are defined functionally in claim 30. There",
        "paragraph_id": "para_213"
      },
      {
        "text": "is no support for the panel’s approach, which concludes",
        "paragraph_id": "para_214"
      },
      {
        "text": "that the method claim is enabled because one functional",
        "paragraph_id": "para_215"
      },
      {
        "text": "limitation (treating headache) is enabled while the other",
        "paragraph_id": "para_216"
      },
      {
        "text": "functional limitation (the underlying compound) is not.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_217"
      },
      {
        "text": "Case: 24-1094 Document: 100 Page: 7 Filed: 09/30/2026",
        "paragraph_id": "para_218"
      },
      {
        "text": "TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_219"
      },
      {
        "text": "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY",
        "paragraph_id": "para_220"
      },
      {
        "text": "5",
        "paragraph_id": "para_221"
      },
      {
        "text": "II",
        "paragraph_id": "para_222"
      },
      {
        "text": "As amici note, the opinion creates an “end-run around",
        "paragraph_id": "para_223"
      },
      {
        "text": "Amgen” and has resulted in guidance urging patent practi-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_224"
      },
      {
        "text": "tioners to use “creative claim drafting to skirt the disclo-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_225"
      },
      {
        "text": "sure requirements of Amgen.” Amicus Br. of Johnson &",
        "paragraph_id": "para_226"
      },
      {
        "text": "Johnson and Nagra USA LLC at 10–12, Dkt. No. 91. In",
        "paragraph_id": "para_227"
      },
      {
        "text": "Amgen itself, the principal use of the claimed PCSK9-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_228"
      },
      {
        "text": "blocking antibodies was to lower cholesterol. Amgen,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_229"
      },
      {
        "text": "598 U.S. at 598–99. The Supreme Court held that the ge-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_230"
      },
      {
        "text": "nus of PCSK9-blocking antibodies was not enabled. Id.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_231"
      },
      {
        "text": "at 613–14. Had Amgen simply claimed a cholesterol-low-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_232"
      },
      {
        "text": "ering method using such antibodies, the scope of Amgen’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_233"
      },
      {
        "text": "patent would not have been meaningfully narrowed; the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_234"
      },
      {
        "text": "PCSK9-blocking antibodies were not useful if not used for",
        "paragraph_id": "para_235"
      },
      {
        "text": "treating cholesterol. Yet according to the panel opinion in",
        "paragraph_id": "para_236"
      },
      {
        "text": "this case, the patentee in Amgen could have evaded the en-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_237"
      },
      {
        "text": "ablement requirement by doing exactly that.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_238"
      },
      {
        "text": "Amici representing the pharmaceutical industry, not",
        "paragraph_id": "para_239"
      },
      {
        "text": "known for urging onerous requirements for patentability,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_240"
      },
      {
        "text": "view the panel decision as confusing and erroneous. Amici",
        "paragraph_id": "para_241"
      },
      {
        "text": "predict that the result “risks foreclosing entire fields of in-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_242"
      },
      {
        "text": "dependent scientific development, chilling innovation pre-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_243"
      },
      {
        "text": "cisely where it is needed most,” Amicus Br. of Merck Sharp",
        "paragraph_id": "para_244"
      },
      {
        "text": "& Dohme LLC & Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. at 11,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_245"
      },
      {
        "text": "Dkt. No. 86, and that “[a]llowing this type of method claim",
        "paragraph_id": "para_246"
      },
      {
        "text": "to proliferate may block research programs for undevel-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_247"
      },
      {
        "text": "oped treatments or disincentivize companies from invest-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_248"
      },
      {
        "text": "ing in product development,” Amicus Br. of Johnson &",
        "paragraph_id": "para_249"
      },
      {
        "text": "Johnson and Nagra USA LLC at 14. Amgen and Sanofi",
        "paragraph_id": "para_250"
      },
      {
        "text": "argue that “differing outcomes” between this case and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_251"
      },
      {
        "text": "Amgen “will create uncertainty for future decisionmakers,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_252"
      },
      {
        "text": "the USPTO, and the industry—ultimately harming pa-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_253"
      },
      {
        "text": "tients.” Amicus Br. of Amgen Inc. & Sanofi S.A. at 14, Dkt.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_254"
      },
      {
        "text": "No. 90.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_255"
      },
      {
        "text": "I respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en",
        "paragraph_id": "para_256"
      },
      {
        "text": "banc.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_257"
      },
      {
        "text": "Case: 24-1094 Document: 100 Page: 8 Filed: 09/30/2026",
        "paragraph_id": "para_258"
      }
    ],
    "word_count": 1848,
    "cites": [
      "598 U.S. 594",
      "172 F.4th 1367",
      "858 F.2d 731",
      "720 F.3d 1380",
      "687 F.3d 1377"
    ],
    "cited_by": [],
    "sha256": "9d77a6296d6cf9cafbdd2a891d5aa92d3f82eb53c61d3580833279af4cf246ca",
    "source_url": "https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1094.ORDER.9-30-2026_2764316.pdf",
    "fetched_at": "2026-10-01T18:24:04.816+00:00",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/cafc-24-1094-2026-09-30",
    "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:cafc-24-1094-2026-09-30",
    "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:cafc-24-1094-2026-09-30",
    "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes",
    "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:cafc-24-1094-2026-09-30",
    "verification": {
      "stored_sha256": "9d77a6296d6cf9cafbdd2a891d5aa92d3f82eb53c61d3580833279af4cf246ca",
      "recomputed_sha256": "9d77a6296d6cf9cafbdd2a891d5aa92d3f82eb53c61d3580833279af4cf246ca",
      "intact": true,
      "checked_at": "2026-10-04T20:10:40.029Z"
    }
  },
  "hash": "sha256:d2d627e5311a5260b3e5f5c8389c8dd33b93260d8ecdb6b09bd679920649641a",
  "version": "legal-2026-10-04",
  "expires": "2026-10-05T00:00:00.000Z",
  "dependency": {
    "index_version": "legal-2026-10-04+legal-2026-10-04+2026-10-04T19:14:59",
    "content_hash": "sha256:d2d627e5311a5260b3e5f5c8389c8dd33b93260d8ecdb6b09bd679920649641a",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-10-04T21:10:40.198Z",
    "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600,
    "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred",
    "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency",
    "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify",
    "stale_copy_invalid": true
  },
  "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cafc-24-1094-2026-09-30",
  "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.",
  "content_notice": {
    "legal_advice": false,
    "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.",
    "kinds": {
      "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted",
      "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text",
      "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"
    },
    "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.",
    "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections",
    "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"
  },
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}