PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Cease and Desist Letters: Protecting Your Intellectual Property the Right Way
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 1) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - IP and M&A Transactions
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
3 Key Takeaways | What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
(Podcast) The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Art of Teaching Complex Technology in Patent Litigation - IMS Insights Podcast Episode 67
The Briefing: Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Podcast: The Briefing - Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
5 Key Takeaways | How to Effectively Leverage the Chinese Patent System
Estoppel Doctrine in China's Patent System
Donation (Disclosure-Dedication) Doctrine in China’s Patent Litigation
6 Key Takeaways | Patent Opinions – New Developments and Pitfalls
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Kidon IP War Stories: David Cohen & Daryl Lim
Protecting the PB&J – Preserving IP Rights from Concept to Market
Patent Marking in China
In Metacel Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Rubicon Research Private Ltd., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that the optional product storage temperatures stated in Rubicon’s proposed generic product label did...more
On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to submit a brief expressing the views of the United States—dramatically increasing the likelihood that the Court will eventually grant review—in Hikma...more
On March 28, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey decision that Mylan Laboratories Ltd. (“Mylan”) induced...more
Invega Trinza® (paliperidone palmitate) - Case Name: Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Mylan Labs. Ltd., No. 2023-2042, 2025 WL 946390 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2025) (Circuit Judges Dyk, Prost, and District Judge Goldberg presiding;...more
Hosted by C5, the 16th Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe returns 23-24 May, at the DoubleTree by Hilton Amsterdam Central Station, Amsterdam with curated programing for you to gain the knowledge and...more
Hosted by ACI, 18th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes Conference returns to New York City for another exciting year with curated programming that not only addresses the hot topics, but also puts them within the context of pre-suit...more
Case Name: Amarin Pharm., Inc. v. Hikma Pharms. USA Inc., No. 20-1630-RGA-JLH, 2022 WL 605734 (D. Del. Jan. 4. 2022) (Andrews, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Vascepa® (icosapent ethyl); U.S. Patents Nos. 8,642,077...more
Case Name: GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 25 F.4th 949 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (Circuit Judges Moore, Newman, Dyk, Prost, O’Malley, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stoll presiding; Moore, Newman, O’Malley, Taranto,...more
Premier forum which shapes the law, policy, and proceedings of Paragraph IV Litigation is back to New York City on April 26-27! Pharmaceutical patent practitioners from across the globe attend this flagship conference to...more
In one of the first district court opinions applying the Federal Circuit’s recent GSK decision on induced infringement in the context of label carve-outs, Judge Richard Andrews in the District of Delaware held that plaintiff...more
Background - On August 5, 2021, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Case No. 18-1976, in favor of GSK, finding that Teva was liable for inducing infringement of GSK's patent....more
Earlier this month, in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed (2-1) upon rehearing its October 2020 decision that a labeling...more
Most judicial outcomes, particularly on appeal, are broadly based on varying combinations of process and outcome. The law is replete with process-based decisions (standing, jurisdiction, waiver, to name a few) and of course...more
On February 23, 2021, a Federal Circuit panel of Chief Judge Prost, Judge Newman, and Judge Moore reheard oral argument in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. As discussed in our previous post, on February 9, 2021,...more
On October 2, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion vacating a district court’s judgment as a matter of law and reinstating a jury verdict finding of induced infringement of a patented use that had been...more
Statutory Basis For Label Carve-Outs - Section viii of the Hatch-Waxman Act permits an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) applicant to obtain FDA approval to market a generic version of a drug for a non-patented use...more
Section viii of the Hatch-Waxman Act, 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(viii), allows a generic applicant to “carve out” indications and other use information from its labeling that are protected by patents listed in FDA’s Orange Book...more
What Quantum of Culpable Conduct Is Required for an ANDA Applicant to Induce Infringement? The back-and-forth, (almost) cat-and-mouse-like competition between branded innovator and generic drug makers sanctioned under the...more
Our first article on Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aventisub, LLC focused on the Federal Circuit’s decision upholding the subject matter eligibility of the personalized method of treatment claims under 35 USC § 101. Here, we...more
In an ANDA applicant’s appeal from a bench trial judgment of validity and infringement, the Court affirmed the district court’s judgment on all counts. The case presented unusual procedural circumstances in a Hatch-Waxman...more
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen judgment and amend the complaint is granted. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal. On September 10, 2015, Takeda...more
Case Name: Takeda Pharms. U.S.A., Inc. v. West-ward Pharm. Corp., Civ. No. 14-1268-SLR, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65317 (D. Del. May 18, 2016) (Robinson, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Colcrys® (colchicine); U.S....more
3D printing offers great promise for innovation and manufacturing, but this tool has expanded the scope of patented products that can be easily and cheaply copied, and may make it harder to identify and prosecute infringers....more
In a complaint filed June 14, 2016, Janssen Biotech Inc. seeks a preliminary injunction that would bar Celltrion and Hospira from selling the biosimilar version of Remicade® (infliximab) that received FDA approval April 2016,...more
Addressing the pleading standard for induced infringement, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed Otsuka Pharmaceutical’s claims finding that a formulaic recitation of the legal standard without...more