LQDA v. UTHR Premium Update

Fed. Cir. Argument Review

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:

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).