Latest Publications

Share:

Speculation of ANDA Product Launch Before FDA Approval Does Not Warrant Permanent Injunction

On December 28, 2016, Judge Stark of the District of Delaware, despite having previously found infringement, held that plaintiffs Bayer Pharma AG, Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc....more

Know the Rules! FDA’s New Regulations Change Responsibilities For ANDA Filers

On October 6, 2016, nearly thirteen years after passage of the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), FDA published a final rule in the Federal Register implementing amendments and revisions to title 21 of the Code of Federal...more

Federal Circuit Provides Guidance On When An Agreement For Services Triggers The On-Sale Bar

On July 11, 2016, the Federal Circuit, en banc, overruled the merits panel and affirmed the District of Delaware’s decision in The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc. finding that an assignee’s entry into a manufacturing...more

What Constitutes a “Commercial Offer” to Trigger the On-Sale Bar?

The on-sale bar defense under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) remains a topic of interest for the Federal Circuit. For example, the Federal Circuit, en banc, is considering whether a supplier exception should exist to the on-sale bar...more

New Life for Vitiation as a Defense to Doctrine of Equivalents Infringement

The doctrine of claim vitiation prevents application of the doctrine of equivalents in a way that would completely eliminate a claim element – i.e., renders the claim limitation inconsequential or ineffective. This doctrine...more

A Stay of Litigation Pending IPR Does Not Provide a Basis For Extending 30-Stay of FDA ANDA Approval

On December 11, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted a motion to stay a Hatch-Waxman litigation pending the outcome of inter partes reviews (IPRs) on two of the patents-in-suit...more

Expert Testimony Must “Connect the Dots” When Presenting Arguments Using Different Language From the Claims

On May 28, 2015, we reported on the Supreme Court’s decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015) which reversed the Federal Circuit’s earlier decision and held that, inter alia, a reasonable...more

Federal Circuit Sends Verinata Patent Back to PTAB – The Import of Background Prior Art In Supplying The Requisite Motivation To...

On November 16, 2015, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB, also the “Board”) inter partes review (“IPR”) decision holding that a prior art reference, though not identified as an...more

Post-Approval Quality Control Testing of Pharmaceutical Products: What Constitutes 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) Infringement or Falls Under...

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed that a generic pharmaceutical company’s use of post-approval quality control testing was not “making” under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). See Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Teva...more

Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity of Method Species Claims Over Prior Art Genus

On November 10, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. et al., No. 14-1634, -1635, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2015) affirming the district court’s decision...more

Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity and Non-Infringement of Patent for Compound Used to Ameliorate Effects of Cancer Treatment

On October 2, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding (1) that a substantially pure compound would have been obvious when a lesser pure compound (“the 50/50 mixture”) and the pure compound were known in...more

District Court Upholds Food Effect Limitation Inherency After Remand From the Federal Circuit

In December of last year, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland’s (“the Court”) decision finding U.S. Patent No. 7,101,576 (“the ‘576 patent”) invalid as obvious. See...more

Federal Circuit Provides Plain Language Test for Analogous Art

Whether or not a prior art reference constitutes “analogous art” for purposes of an obviousness inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been the subject of debate in many instances. On July 28, 2015, the Federal Circuit, in Circuit...more

Federal Circuit Affirms That No Supplier Exception Exists When It Comes To The On-Sale Bar

On July 2, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., --- F.3d ---, 2015 WL 4033143 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2015) reversing the District of Delaware’s finding that the asserted claims...more

Locke Lord QuickStudy: Belief As To A Patent’s Validity Is Not A Defense To Induced Infringement

Following last year’s decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. et al., 572 U.S. ____ (2014) (holding that a finding of induced infringement requires that all infringing acts be performed by a single...more

40 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide