No. 2009-1553 (Fed. Cir. 6/3/2010) (non precedential). Par filed an ANDA for once daily tramadol, with PIV cert’s against two patents. Purdue sued, and Par counterclaimed that the patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of enablement and written description, invalid under § 103 for obviousness, and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. […]
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