⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Federal Circuit hears a patent dispute about when treatment with colchicine begins after a heart attack, and whether it starts without a larger initial dose. The Montreal Heart Institute owns a patent covering early low-dose treatment, including claims that specify starting within about three days without that initial loading dose. Murray and Poole challenged the patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board found the challenged claims unpatentable, relying on earlier patent and clinical-trial materials. The institute is now appealing. One important reference is an earlier patent known as Nidorf; another is a summary of the COLCOT trial protocol. The parties disagree over whether those documents actually disclose treatment without a loading dose, or merely fail to discuss the subject. The institute's lawyer will argue that the Board treated silence as disclosure and wrongly required the patent owner to prove that the earlier treatment included a loading dose. Murray and Poole's lawyer will argue that a skilled reader would understand the described daily regimen as having no loading dose, and that the Board's factual findings have evidentiary support. They also disagree over whether earlier studies supplied a reasonable expectation that starting treatment soon after a heart attack would work. The institute will challenge the Board's use of the studies and comparisons; Murray and Poole will defend combining the earlier teachings. Listen for the difference between a patent being broad enough to cover a treatment and actually disclosing it, and between a reason to try earlier treatment and a reasonable expectation of success.

Institut de Cardiologie de Montreal v. Murray & Poole Enterprises Ltd. (No. 25-1627) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued November 6, 2026.