IS THE A IN ANDA BEGINNING TO MEAN ANTITRUST?
In a decision characterized (somewhat remarkably) by the Circuit Court as being one of first impression, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal with prejudice of an antitrust allegation by a class of plaintiffs* against Forest...more
In Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2023-1952 (Fed. Cir. April 11, 2024), this case involves appellate review of a district court’s findings regarding patent obviousness and infringement in...more
In H. Lundbeck A-S v. Lupin Ltd., Case No. 2022-1194 (Fed. Circ. December 7, 2023), Plaintiffs, H. Lundbeck A/S (“Lundbeck”) and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made explicit what has long been considered implicit based on Warner-Lambert and its progeny, namely, that plaintiffs asserting an induced infringement theory to bar the entry...more
VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Appeal No. 2022-1906 (Fed. Cir. December 4, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit vacated an approximately $2.2 billion damages award against appellant Intel...more
Proper construction of claim limitations reciting the chemical property of pH (which denotes the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution as an indication of acidity) has arisen several times in district court and Federal...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that the limitation “a pH of 13 or higher” could not be construed using the asserted patents’ intrinsic evidence and therefore remanded to the district court with...more
BACKGROUND- A sugar distributor sought to acquire a sugar producer. The district court determined that the relevant product market included distributors as sources of refined sugar, in addition to sugar producers. The...more
This case is an appellate review of the district court’s findings regarding patent obviousness and priority date. Background Amgen produces and markets apremilast, a medication for the treatment of certain types of psoriasis...more
In United Therapeutics Corporation v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a claim to a method of treatment for pulmonary hypertension was not invalid for lack of enablement...more
We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered that the only Orange Book patent asserted in a lawsuit must be delisted since its claims were directed to the computer-implemented distribution system and not a method...more
On February 24, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Case No. 23-1186, affirmed a decision from the District Court of Delaware directing...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding of noninfringement in a Hatch-Waxman case under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) and § 271(a)-(b). The Court found that the alleged infringer’s...more
On June 21, in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., a reshuffled Federal Circuit panel reversed course on rehearing to find that a negative claim limitation was not supported by silence in the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a finding that patents covering Narcan, a naloxone-based intranasal opioid overdose treatment, were obvious despite evidence of long-felt need. Adapt Pharma Operations...more
On February 10, in Adapt Pharma Operations Ltd. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding that Adapt’s methods of treatment of opioid overdose is invalid as obvious. The...more
On January 3, 2021, The Federal Circuit held in a 2-1 decision in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022) that the claims of Novartis’ U.S. Pat. No. 9,187,405 (“the ’405 patent”) met the...more
Addressing the issue of written description in a Hatch-Waxman litigation, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the patent adequately described the claimed daily dose and...more
Vacating a stipulated infringement judgment based on an incorrect claim construction, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that it is improper to isolate claim language from the intrinsic evidence when...more
Addressing venue in the context of a Hatch-Waxman case, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that sending a paragraph IV notice letter to a company in the district is insufficient to establish venue....more
On November 5, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 21-1154, affirmed a decision from the District Court of New Jersey dismissing a suit brought by...more
University of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting LLC, Appeal No. 2021-2243 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2021) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed an inter partes review decision finding claims directed to...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement where substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict of induced infringement by...more
On April 27, 2021, the United States Tax Court held that legal fees incurred by generic drug manufacturers in connection with “Section 271(e)(2)” patent infringement suits are deductible as ordinary business expenses and need...more