On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Delaware district court’s summary judgment of ineligibility, holding that REGENXBIO's gene therapy patent claims are not directed to a natural phenomenon. In doing so, Judge Stoll—joined by Judges Dyk and Hughes—provided a masterclass in how to properly apply the “markedly different characteristics” test from Diamond v. Chakrabarty to modern biotechnology. And the biopharma world is collectively exhaling.

On February 8, 2025, I was watching Super Bowl LIX. On came a commercial by Him & Hers offering to deliver weight loss medications to your door. And they looked a lot like Ozempic® and Wegovy®. Being a pharma patent geek watching with another pharma patent geek, we stopped talking about using MALDI-TOF in infringement analyses and started asking a question that Novo Nordisk single-handedly made vogue last week. Why don’t compounders run afoul of patent law all the time? Or do they?

Abu Dhabi Investment Council has filed a complaint against Energy & Minerals Group over a GP-led sale of a 30% stake in Ascent Resources, arguing it would harm limited partners and disproportionately benefit EMG insiders while allowing the fund manager to unjustly reset profit-sharing terms.

The Federal Circuit’s recent decisions have shifted the standards for induced infringement, now considering not just a generic drug's label, but also its marketing practices. This has led to a Supreme Court inquiry on whether a fully carved-out generic label can still encourage infringement.