Regeneron perpetuated Eylea as a blockbuster by using its patents to block entry of lower-cost generics.  When those patents neared expiration, Regeneron launched a new formulation covered by at least one patent, namely, Eylea HD.  One of those patent only recently issued, but has already been challenged by at least one prospective generic in a Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the Patent Office (PTAB).  Will that challenge succeed?  

Bad facts make bad law.  The case of GlaxoSmithKline’s lawsuit over Teva’s generic Coreg® drug is a case-in-point.  I previously blogged about the case here and here.  Given that the Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari, we’re now stuck with Federal Circuit precedent holding that a generic can still face liability for induced infringement of a method-of-use patent covering a section viii carved-out indication.  What will be the consequences of this?