Recent Posts
- Hikma v. Vanda: Oral Argument Recap
- Teva v. Lilly should not be read as creating a new 112 rule for method of use claims
- Should ANDA filers be using the PTAB to mount early challenges to OB patents?
- Switching to WordPress
- Judge Hughes concurrence highlights post grant review appeal standing issue for pharma cases
Category: Infringement–Indirect
-
Since it has been a while since my last post, I’m going to do something a little different and do a quick run down of ten Federal Circuit cases that have issued in the past few months and highlight some key takeaways. I’ll give a quick bullet point review of the cases, with slightly more…
-
GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva, No. 18-1976 (Fed. Cir. 2020) by Alex Menchaca In our last post, we reported that Chief Judge Stark of the District of Delaware granted Judgment as a Matter of Law of no induced infringement in a case concerning Coreg® (carvedilol) tablets, wiping away a $200 million jury verdict in favor…
-
GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva, No. 14-878-LPS-CJB (D. Del.) by Aaron F. Barkoff In an opinion last week, Judge Stark of the District of Delaware granted Teva's motion for judgment as a matter of law that GSK failed to present sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict that Teva induced infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE40,000. Judge…
-
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2012-1042 (Fed. Cir.) by Sandra A. Frantzen The law regarding what proofs are necessary to establish inducement of infringement and what defenses are available to those accused of inducement has been hotly debated. In Commil v. Cisco, decided on Tuesday, a unanimous Federal Circuit panel…
-
Bone Care Int'l v. Roxane Labs., No. 09-cv-285 (GMS) (D. Del.) In an opinion this past Monday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware found in favor of Genzyme and against ANDA applicants Roxane, Sandoz, and Anchen in the paragraph IV litigation concerning HECTOROL (doxercalciferol), Genzyme's drug for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism…
-
Bayer Schering Pharma et al. v. Lupin et al., Nos. 2011-1143, -1228 (Fed. Cir.) by Malaika D. Tyson In a 2-1 opinion this past Monday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing Bayer's patent infringement claims against Watson, Sandoz and Lupin because their ANDAs did not seek approval for the patented use. At…
-
Global-Tech Appliances v. SEB, No. 10-6 (U.S. 2011) by Aaron F. Barkoff Method-of-use patents are frequently asserted in ANDA litigation. When they are, the patent owner alleges that if the ANDA is approved, the ANDA applicant would induce infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Section 271(b) states: "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent…
-
Abraxis Bioscience v. Navinta, No. 2009-1539 (Fed. Cir. 2010) In 2006, Navinta filed an ANDA for a generic version of Naropin (ropivacaine), a drug indicated for use in surgical anasthesia and acute pain management. At the time, there was only one patent listed for ropivacaine in the Orange Book, U.S. Patent No. 4,870,086, which claims…
Orange Book Blog 