Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 304: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 1 – Jurisdiction)
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 343: Listen and Learn -- Personal Jurisdiction (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 169: Listen and Learn -- Personal Jurisdiction (Civ Pro)
Redefining Personal Jurisdiction: SCOTUS rules on the Ford Cases [More with McGlinchey Ep. 19]
Personal Jurisdiction Part 3 – Oral Arguments in the Ford Cases [More with McGlinchey Ep. 12]
Personal Jurisdiction Part 2: The Ford Cases [More With McGlinchey Ep. 8]
Personal Jurisdiction: Not what you learned in law school [More with McGlinchey Ep. 4]
Yondelis® (trabectedin) - Case Name: Janssen Prods., L.P. v. EVER Valinject GmbH, Civ. No. 24-7319, 2025 WL 639380 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2025) (Harjani, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Yondelis® (trabectedin); U.S....more
The Federal Circuit recently issued decisions in a pair of appeals that provide guidance about when international filers of abbreviated Biologics License Applications (aBLAs) are subject to jurisdiction in the United States....more
Note: This post addresses two Federal Circuit decisions issued on January 29, 2025. Both appeals involved Plaintiff-Appellee Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with the first appeal involving Defendant-Appellant Formycon AG...more
On January 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction by the Northern District of West Virginia in favor of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Samsung...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - STEUBEN FOODS, INC. v. SHIBUYA HOPPMANN CORPORATION [OPINION] (2023-1790, 1/24/2025) (Moore, Hughes, Cunningham) - Moore, Chief J. The Court reversed the district...more
On November 5, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Valeant Pharmaceuticals N. Am. LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 19-2402, resolved a split among district courts over what constitutes...more
Last week was argument week at the Federal Circuit, which as usual meant the Court issued several Rule 36 affirmances and short non-precedential decisions. But tucked in between those was at least one case—a Hatch-Waxman...more
Somewhat remarkably, there is no settled Federal Circuit precedent regarding where a patentee can bring suit against a generic competitor in Hatch-Waxman litigation under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). While recognizing that this...more
The Federal Circuit Thursday issued a decision that narrows the venue options available to patent owners bringing suit against generic drug manufacturers under the Hatch-Waxman Act. In a unanimous decision, the court held...more
A Tale of Two ANDAs: Jurisdiction and Venue in a Non-Traditional Sense - Judge Gilstrap’s recent opinion in Apicore US LLC v. Beloteca, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00077-JRG, 2019 WL 1746079 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2019), highlights...more
On April 17, 2019, Judge Gilstrap of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in Apicore v. Beloteca, No. 19-cv-00077, held that while the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a generic...more
Taiwanese Manufacturer of Smartphones Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Texas in Patent Infringement Case Because of its Allegedly Purposeful Efforts to Serve the US Market Even Though all US Distribution was Orchestrated...more
Taiwanese Manufacturer of Smartphones Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Texas in Patent Infringement Case Because of its Allegedly Purposeful Efforts to Serve the US Market, Even Though all US Distribution was Orchestrated...more
In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, which was a game changer for patent venue. The case drastically narrowed where defendants can be sued and shifted a significant amount...more
The US Supreme Court this week held that the broad venue provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) does not apply to patent law—at least, when the defendant is a domestic entity. This decision arises after years of judicial...more
With the growing volume of biosimilar and pharma litigation in district courts and before the PTAB, the U.S. International Trade Commission may emerge as another forum for patent holders against imported biosimilars. Section...more
On Monday, January 9, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied, without comment, Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ petition for certiorari to reverse an opinion by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed a broad scope of...more
Generic and branded pharma companies alike are waiting with baited breath to see if the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue of personal jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman patent cases this term. After a broad ruling from the...more
Case Name: Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., Civil No. 15-2077 (MLC), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45826 (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2016) (Cooper, J.) - Drug Product and Patents-in-Suit: Aloxi® (palonosetron); U.S. Patents Nos....more
180-Day Notice Period for Biosimilar Approval Is Always Mandatory and Enforceable by Injunction - Amgen Inc., v. Apotex Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016) - A year after analyzing the patent dance and notice...more
On March 18, 2016, the Federal Circuit held that filing an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) with the FDA for a generic drug product, and thus indicating an intention to sell that product in every state (including...more
On March 18, 2016, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Delaware’s ruling in two companion cases that West Virginia-based defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Delaware....more
Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e), filing an Abbreviated Biologics License Application (aBLA)—like filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA)— can be an act of patent infringement resulting in ‘artificial’ injury to a patentee....more
The disputed technology is a generic rivastigmine patch. Defendant is a New Jersey corporation with a principal place of business in Vermont. Only specific jurisdiction is at issue since it is not “at home” in Delaware. ...more