News & Analysis as of

Prior Art Patents 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

Knobbe Martens

When an Unmet Need May Not Be Enough

Knobbe Martens on

ADAPT PHARMA OPERATIONS LTD. V. TEVA PHARMS. USA, INC. Before Newman, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: Recent attempts by competitors to achieve...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

White & Case LLP

Supreme Court Says America Invents Act Did Not Alter On-Sale Bar

White & Case LLP on

Squib of Holding and Key Implication: The United States Supreme Court, in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., held on January 22, 2019 that "a commercial sale to a third party who is required to keep...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2018

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Finds Claims Directed to Tabbed Spreadsheets Patent Eligible and Claims Directed to Tracking Changes in Documents Ineligible Under Section 101 - In Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, Appeal No....more

WilmerHale

What High Court Will Consider in Helsinn On-Sale Bar Case

WilmerHale on

The U.S. Supreme Court may soon resolve an issue that has sparked much debate since the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act — namely, whether under the AIA, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party...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

McDermott Will & Schulte

Supreme Court to Consider Whether Confidential Sale Triggers On-Sale Bar

The US Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the question of whether, under the America Invents Act, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualifies as...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Fed. Cir. Nos. 2015-2021, -2022, -2023, -2024, -2025, -2026, -2028, -2031, -2033, -2034, -2035, -2041, -2042, -2046, -2047, -2049, -2059, -2060, 2016-1025, -1060, -1117,...more

Jones Day

High Court to Hear Helsinn v. Teva, Resolve AIA Secret Sales Question

Jones Day on

On June 25, 2018, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the Federal Circuit's decision in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, No. 17-1229. In Helsinn, the Federal Circuit considered whether the America...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

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., Nos. 2014-1439, 2014-1441, 2014-1444, 2014-1445, 2014-1446, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21946 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (Circuit Judges Lourie, Reyna and Taranto...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

17 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