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
In Regeneron Pharms., Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., the Federal Circuit recently held that biosimilar pharmaceutical companies that filed abbreviated Biologics License Applications (aBLAs) and planned to make a single sale to a...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
On January 29, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued paired decisions addressing Samsung Bioepis’s (“SB”) and Formycon AG’s (“Formycon”) appeals of preliminary injunctions entered in ongoing aflibercept biosimilar litigations with...more
As we have previously reported, in November 2023 Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Regeneron”) filed complaints against Celltrion, Samsung Bioepis and Formycon (collectively, “the Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for...more
We have previously reported on AbbVie’s first and second wave suits against Alvotech hf (Alvotech) in the Northern District of Illinois regarding an adalimumab biosimilar. In the first wave suit, on October 5, 2021 AbbVie...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - CAP EXPORT, LLC v. ZINUS, INC. [OPINION] (2020-2087, 5/5/21) (Dyk, Bryson, Hughes) - Dyk, J. Affirming decision to set aside judgment and injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of...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
Mere Potential for Future Appeal Does Not Prevent Triggering Estoppel of Inter Partes Reexamination When Party Fails to Seek Relief in the First Instance - In Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1591, -1592,...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
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
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. v. Plano Encryption Technologies LLC, Appeal No. 2016-2700 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2018) On Friday, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of a...more
Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Ltd., Appeal Nos. 2016-2616, -2656 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2018) - In an appeal from a inter partes review, the Federal Circuit reviewed a PTAB obviousness...more
In an 8-0 decision issued on May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, restricted the available venues for patent litigation claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1400. Under Section...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
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
In Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) and intentions to market the product across the United States–including in the...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
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