News & Analysis as of

Obviousness Prior Art Teva Pharmaceuticals

Knobbe Martens

Combination Dosing Regimen Not Obvious Despite Overlapping Prior-Art Ranges

Knobbe Martens on

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Federal Circuit found that claims reciting a...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Invega Sustenna® (paliperidone palmitate) - Case Name: Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. Nos. 18-734, 19-16484, 2024 WL 5135666 (D.N.J. Dec. 17, 2024) (Cecchi, J.)  Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit:...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

Unexpected Results in Hatch Waxman Litigation: A Review of Legal Decisions from 2023

Womble Bond Dickinson on

Patent owners generally look to secondary indicia to bolster their nonobvious defenses when prior art and/or knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) seem to make the obviousness decision a close call. This...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - April 2024 #2

Janssen Pharms., Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. et al., Appeal Nos. 2022-1258, -1307 (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part a district court’s bench trial...more

Smart & Biggar

Federal Court decision regarding glatiramer acetate finds one patent obvious and another valid and infringed

Smart & Biggar on

On January 6, 2021, the Federal Court issued its decision in two patent infringement actions pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations involving Teva’s patents pertaining to the...more

Smart & Biggar

Orders of prohibition relating to polymorphic form patent for PRISTIQ upheld on appeal

Smart & Biggar on

As previously reported, the Federal Court, in a pair of decisions, granted orders prohibiting Apotex and Teva from marketing their generic o-desmethyl-venlafaxine (ODV) succinate products (Pfizer’s PRISTIQ) until expiry of...more

Jones Day

Post-Priority Document Usable As Evidence of POSITA Motivation

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) final written decisions finding the claims of Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd.’s (“Yeda”) U.S. Patent Nos. 8,232,250, 8,399,413, and...more

Knobbe Martens

Yeda Research And Development Co., Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. & Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Judges Reyna, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Non-prior art evidence may...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. No. 11-6936 (FSH), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26207 (D.N.J. Mar. 4, 2015) (Hochberg, J.). Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Atelvia® (risedronate /...more

McDermott Will & Emery

A Compound Is Obvious Where Only Minor Changes to a Prior Art “Lead Compound” Are Required to Make the Claimed Compound

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms USA, Inc. - Addressing the obviousness of a claimed compound where a person of skill would need to make only minor changes to a lead compound to arrive at the claimed invention,...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