News & Analysis as of

Generic Drugs Safe Harbors Pharmaceutical Patents

Fish & Richardson

Federal Circuit Reverses Injunction That Barred Clinical Trials in Jazz v. Avadel

Fish & Richardson on

The Federal Circuit recently considered the scope of a permanent injunction that prohibited a drug manufacturer from conducting certain clinical and regulatory activities in Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS...more

Proskauer - Minding Your Business

The Broad Impact of Edwards v. Meril on the Safe Harbor Provision

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., has garnered significant attention, especially concerning the application of the “safe harbor” provision under 35 U.S.C. §...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

In Wake of In re Cellect, District Court Interprets Safe Harbor Statute and Finds Patent Not Invalid for Obviousness-Type Double...

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently held on summary judgment that a patent with 2,295 days of combined patent term adjustment (PTA) and patent term extension (PTE) was not invalid for obviousness-type...more

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

Biosimilar Litigation Trends and Lessons Learned in 2019

It has been nearly 10 years since the U.S. Biosimilars Pathway (the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act) was enacted. The first biosimilar product in U.S. history was approved and launched in 2015. Ten biosimilars...more

Goodwin

Supreme Court Declines to Review Scope of Section 271(e)(1) Safe-Harbor

Goodwin on

Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court denied Amphastar Pharmaceutical’s petition for certiorari regarding the scope of the safe-harbor of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), a provision that generic drug and biosimilar makers...more

Fenwick & West Life Sciences Group

Will the Supreme Court Review Whether FDA-Mandated Bioequivalence Testing to Maintain Approval Falls Within the § 271(e)(1) Safe...

The Supreme Court has been asked to review whether the safe harbor established by 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) encompasses a generic drug manufacturer’s bioequivalence testing performed only as a condition of maintaining FDA...more

BakerHostetler

Momenta Pharma., Inc. v. Teva Pharma. USA Inc.

BakerHostetler on

In Momenta Pharma., Inc. v. Teva Pharma. USA Inc., Nos. 2014-1274, -1277, -1276, and -1278 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2015) (“Momenta II”), the Federal Circuit found that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), “made” is limited to steps...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supplier to ANDA Filer Is Not Liable for Induced Infringement Until After ANDA Approval - Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms., LLC

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the scope of the safe harbor provision of § 271(e)(1), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court, holding that supplying an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) to the filer of...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms. LLC

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms. LLC, 2014-1736, -1737, -1738, -1739, -1740, -1741, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16908 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2015) (Circuit Judges Moore, Mayer, and Linn presiding; Opinion by Linn, J.) (Appeal...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Better Early than Never: SDNY Dismisses Lawsuit over Patent Settlement where Generics were Granted Early-Entry Licenses with...

On September 22, Judge Ronnie Abrams of the Southern District of New York dismissed an antitrust lawsuit against Takeda Pharmaceuticals and three generic drug manufacturers based on settlements they had reached regarding a...more

10 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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