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: Paragraph IV Cases
-
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…
-
By: Rocco Screnci Ben recently covered Astellas Pharma, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., in which the Federal Circuit vacated a district court decision for violating the principle of party presentation. 117 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Today’s post focuses on some interesting procedural issues that have since developed on remand. By way of background, the district…
-
by: Rocco J. Screnci This is the second post in a two-part series on obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”). Part one summarized the two recent precedential Federal Circuit decisions in this area. To sum up where last post left off: The Federal Circuit’s decision in Cellect initially seemed to drastically expand the application of ODP,…
-
by: Rocco J. Screnci This post is the first in a two-part series about recent developments in the law of double patenting. This post provides relevant background and summarizes the Federal Circuit’s recent decisions in In re Cellect, 81 F.4th 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Priv. Ltd.,…
-
Valeant v. Mylan, No. 19-2402 (Fed. Cir.) by Alex Menchaca In a precedential decision last week, the Federal Circuit settled how the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision bears on venue issues in Hatch-Waxman litigation. Valeant details the court's pre-TC Heartland patent venue jurisprudence when venue for patent infringement cases could be established by…
-
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…
-
Acorda Therapeutics v. Mylan Pharms., 2015-1456 (Fed. Cir. March 18, 2016) AstraZeneca v. Mylan Pharms, 2015-1460 (Fed. Cir. March 18, 2016) by Alex Menchaca Where is an ANDA applicant subject to personal jurisdiction when the only act of infringement is "artificial" infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A)? This question has generated a great deal of…
-
Apotex Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Nos. 2014-1282, 2014-1291 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 31, 2015) by Dunstan H. Barnes Apotex, Inc. sued Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. and Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of a Daiichi-owned, but Daiichi-disclaimed, patent,…
-
Tyco Healthcare et al. v. Mutual Pharm. et al., No. 2013-1386 (Fed. Cir.) by Aaron F. Barkoff In 2006, Mutual filed an ANDA for a generic version of Restoril (temazepam), including a paragraph IV certification to Tyco's U.S. Patent No. 5,211,954. Tyco filed suit against Mutual under 35 USC 271(e)(2), Mutual responded with antitrust…
Orange Book Blog 