In this Hatch-Waxman action, Apotex is attempting to trigger a forfeiture event, that if successful, will cause Mylan to forfeit its 180-day exclusivity for a generic copy of Benicar®, olmesartan medoximil, that Mylan is otherwise eligible to receive.
ATELVIA® Patents Obvious at District Court
The court therefore found clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention (in 2005) would have been motivated to use EDTA in the claimed amounts with a reasonable expectation of success.
Megestrol Nanoparticle Formulation Claims – Not Inherently Obvious (at least not yet)
in an obviousness analysis, an inherency argument has a heightened standard that must be the natural result flowing from the operation as disclosed in prior art references.
Zydus Not Infringing Lansoprazole ODT Particle Size Claim
Contact the author: Andrew Berks Takeda Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Zydus Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 2013-1406 (Fed. Cir. 2/20/2014) This Hatch-Waxman case pertains to particle size claims for the brand name drug Prevacid® SoluTab™. The product is an orally dissolving tablet (ODT) containing lansoprzaole. Only claim 1 of US6328994 is in dispute, which reads, in relevant […]
Prosecution Laches as Defense to Infringement — Cancer Res. Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.
Prosecution laches is an equitable defense to a charge of patent infringement, that “may render a patent unenforceable when it has issued only after an unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution” that constitutes an egregious misuse of the statutory patent system.
Donepezil: Teva has standing in declaratory judgement action that it doesn’t infringe listed patents
Teva Pharms. USA Inc. v. Eisai Co., Ltd., No. 2009-1593 (Fed. Cir. 10/6/2010). Ranbaxy was first-filer (pre-MMA) for donepezil of an ANDA with a “paragraph IV” certification, and Teva was a subsequent filer with a paragraph IV certification. Teva obtained tentative approval for its ANDA, but was prevented from marketing by Ranbaxy’s first-filing. Teva sued […]
Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.
No. 2010-1246 (Fed. Cir. 8/5/2010) (Linn, Moore, Friedman, opinion by Moore).This case highlights several important issues in an ANDA litigation. Background Adams owns the ‘252 patent for controlled release guaifenesin. Adams markets Mucinex® which is the preferred embodiment of the ‘252 patent. Slip op. at 3. Perrigo filed an ANDA seeking to market 600 mg […]
Federal Circuit Issues Two § 156 Decisions
On Monday, May 10, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued two decisions dealing with 35 U.S.C. § 156 (patent term extension to compensate for regulatory delays). In Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2009-1362 (Fed. Cir. 5/10/2010) (Judges Newman, Rader, Linn; opinion by Newman). Daiichi Pharmaceuticals owns U.S. 5,053,404, and obtained a patent term […]
Stay In Touch!
Subscribe to our Newsletter!
Search
Recent Posts
- Immunogen Antibody Conjugate Patent Survives IPR
- Crowd Funding Boost? Crowd Funding Patent Invalidated by Kickstarter
- Apotex loses IPR on Prodrug Obviousness (Institution Denied)
- You think your competitor’s patent is junk? Don’t tell it to the judge
- Means-Plus-Function Software Claims Must Have an Underlying Algorithm
Links
Tags
35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶1
35 U.S.C. § 156
35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(5)
35 USC § 112(a)
ANDA
anticipation
assignments
award of attorney fees
best mode
bioequivalence
Claim construction
declaratory judgment action
defenses to infringement
deference to agency review
definiteness
DNA sequence claims
Doctrine of Equivalents
enablement
Equitable estoppel
functional claim language
Hatch-Waxman litigation
indefiniteness
inequitable conduct
infringement dismissed
invalidity
inventorship
JMOL
laches
means-plus-function
nonobvious
numeric ranges
obviousness
Obviousness upheld
paragraph IV certifications
patent license
peptide sequence claims
pharmaceutical formulations
priority claims
reissue patent
secondary considerations
Standing to sue
subject matter jurisdiction
trade secrets
trigger of exclusivity
written description