Duke University v. Sandoz Inc., No. 24-1078 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 18, 2025)

Editorial Summary

AI-assisted editorial summary; not attorney-reviewed. Verify against the opinion itself before relying on any characterization of the holding.

Sandoz appealed from a District of Colorado judgment that it failed to prove claim 30 of Duke and Allergan's U.S. Patent No. 9,579,270 — relating to bimatoprost formulations — invalid for lack of adequate written description. The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that no reasonable factfinder, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Allergan, could have found anything other than clear and convincing evidence that the inventors did not actually possess the claimed invention. Claim 30 was held invalid for lack of written description.