Valorem Research - Legal Special Situations

Valorem Research - Legal Special Situations

Share this post

Valorem Research - Legal Special Situations
Valorem Research - Legal Special Situations
LQDA v. UTHR Premium Update
Copy link
Facebook
Email
Notes
More

LQDA v. UTHR Premium Update

Fed. Cir. Argument Review

Valorem Legal Research's avatar
Valorem Legal Research
Dec 05, 2023
∙ Paid
21

Share this post

Valorem Research - Legal Special Situations
Valorem Research - Legal Special Situations
LQDA v. UTHR Premium Update
Copy link
Facebook
Email
Notes
More
15
1
Share

We’re almost there, folks! Today’s hearing at the Federal Circuit marked the (likely) end to the most critical legal proceedings deciding Liquidia’s 2024 commercialization prospects. It was a jam packed 30 minutes of argument, with Judges Lourie, Prost, and Reyna presiding over the hearing.

I’ll say at the outset: Liquidia’s counsel, Sanya Sukduang, did an incredible job. I say that not as a reflection of my expectation on ultimate outcome of the case, but simply to take a moment to appreciate the art of oral advocacy done well. The Federal Circuit is easily one of the most intimidating venues in which to litigate, with three veteran judges ready to pounce at the slightest misstep or logical inconsistency. Mr. Sukduang put on a masterclass in efficient argument, respectfully re-directing the judges to his desired arguments and ending his presentation with literally 2 seconds to spare. I also say this because the dichotomy between Liquidia’s counsel and UTHR’s counsel was best highlighted by this humorous comment from Judge Lourie to UTHR’s counsel as UTHR’s counsel was sitting down:

1×
0:00
-0:07
Audio playback is not supported on your browser. Please upgrade.

So what was UTHR’s focus today? And was it effective? It all came down to the first two arguments in their briefing:

  1. Voswinckel JESC and JAHA do not constitute prior art (Arguments “1A” and “1B” in my prior post), and

  2. Voswinckel JESC and JAHA do not disclose the dosage specified in the ’793 patent (Mostly argument “2A” and some “2B” from the prior post).

This post is for paid subscribers

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in
© 2025 Valorem Legal Research
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start writingGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture

Share

Copy link
Facebook
Email
Notes
More