Hatch-Waxman Patents

News & Analysis as of

Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. FDA

Case Name: Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. FDA, Civ. No. 14-2126 (RBW), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77559 (D.D.C. June 12, 2015) (Walton, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Astagraf XL® (tacrolimus); N/A...more

AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp.

Case Name: AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp., 2014-1221, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5543 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2015) (Circuit Judges O’Malley, Clevenger, and Bryson presiding; Opinion by Bryson, J.) (Appeal from S.D.N.Y., Cote, J.)...more

Third Circuit Says Actavis Not Limited to Cash

In the first decision by a federal appeals court interpreting the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in FTC v. Actavis, the Third Circuit recently held in King Drug Co. of Florence v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. that so-called...more

Insite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

Case Name: Insite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 783 F.3d 853 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2015) (Circuit Judges Prost, Newman, and Linn presiding; Opinion by Linn, J.) (Appeal from D.N.J., Cooper, J.) - Drug Product and...more

ANDA Update - July 2015

Supreme Court Holds Good Faith Belief of Patent Invalidity Is Not a Defense to Induced Infringement - Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Supr. Ct. May 26, 2015): Pharmaceutical patents commonly include...more

Takeda Pharms. U.S.A., Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Corp.

Case Name: Takeda Pharms. U.S.A., Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Corp., 785 F.3d 625 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2015) (Circuit Judges Newman, Dyk, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Dyk, J.; Dissent by Newman, J.) (Appeal from D. Del.,...more

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharms., Inc.

Case Name: Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharms., Inc., 786 F.3d 892 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2015) (Circuit Judges Prost and Lourie, and District Judge Gilstrap presiding; Opinion by Lourie, J.) (Appeal from D. Md.,...more

Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Watson Labs., Inc.

Case Name: Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Watson Labs., Inc., Fed. Cir. Nos. 2014-1799, -1800, 2015-1061, -1062, -1120, -1121, -1141, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8374 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2015) (Circuit Judges Lourie, Taranto, and Hughes...more

Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc.

Case Name: Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2015) (Circuit Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Hughes, J.) (Appeal from S.D. Fla., Middlebrooks, J.) - Drug...more

Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., v. Sandoz, Inc.

Case Name: Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., v. Sandoz, Inc., Fed. Cir. Nos. 2012-1567, -1568, -1569, -1570, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10229 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2015) (Circuit Judges Moore, Mayer, and Wallach presiding; Opinion by Moore,...more

IPR Broader Review Standard Upheld by Narrow Federal Circuit Majority

On July 8, 2015, the full Federal Circuit decided not to reconsider en banc (before all the judges) the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) standard to construe patents broadly for inter...more

Disclosure Requirements Under the BPCIA

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) provides for a series of disclosures between a biosimilar applicant and the innovator company, commonly referred to as the “patent dance.” 42 U.S.C. §262(l). While...more

First Federal Appellate Court Holds a NonCash Reverse Payment Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny: Is the Third Circuit's Decision in...

Recently, the Third Circuit issued the first federal appellate decision interpreting the Supreme Court's landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.[1], potentially greatly expanding the scope of settling parties in reverse...more

No Induced Infringement Where Off-Label Use of a Drug Is Not “Inevitable” - Takeda Pharms. U.S.A., Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Corp.

Finding that a drug label’s language did not rise to the level of “active encouragement” that would induce doctors to infringe, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of a...more

Are IPRs impacting the pharmaceutical industry?

The use of inter partes review (IPR) to challenge patents has grown significantly since its initiation in September 2012. In the first four months of IPRs, the USPTO received 97 petitions. In the parallel months of 2014, 578...more

Applicability of the Entire Market Value Rule in Hatch-Waxman Cases - AstraZeneca AB, et al. v. Apotex Corp., et al.

Addressing damages issues in the Hatch-Waxman context, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit provided important guidance regarding the application of the entire market value rule to pharmaceutical sales, and the...more

California Supreme Court Details Antitrust Analysis of "Reverse Payment" Patent Settlements

Last week, in In re Cipro Cases I & II, Case No. S198616, the Supreme Court of California adopted the United States Supreme Court's application of the Rule of Reason to the antitrust analysis of so-called "reverse payment"...more

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

The Hatch Waxman statute created a safe-harbor provision, found at 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), that allows ANDA filers and others to practice patented inventions without fear of infringement liability, provided the acts are...more

Lessons in Personal Jurisdiction for BPCIA Litigants after the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler

An emerging issue in Hatch-Waxman litigation – and potentially under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) – is the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct.746 (2014), on...more

Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of a Disclaimed Patent Warranted in Hatch-Waxman - Apotex Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.

Addressing the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal for lack of case or controversy of an action seeking...more

Use of “Antithesis” of Claim Element Does Not Bar Application of Doctrine of Equivalents - Cadence Pharms. Inc. v. Exela Pharma...

In a Hatch-Waxman case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the use of a claimed step, characterized as the “antithesis” of a limitation in the asserted claim, nonetheless satisfied that limitation...more

Amgen v. Sandoz Update -- BIO Files an Amicus Brief at the Federal Circuit

On March 19, 2015, U.S. District Judge Seeborg of the Northern District of California denied a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by Amgen to prevent the imminent launch by Sandoz of a biosimilar version of NEUPOGEN®...more

Federal Circuit Addresses Damages in the Hatch-Waxman Context

On April 7, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Astrazeneca AB v. Apotex Corp., No. 2014-1221, affirming an award of a reasonable royalty of 50% in a case arising from the...more

Apotex Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Can a Federal district court ever have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a declaratory judgment action of non-infringement for a disclaimed patent? Of course, the Federal Circuit explained this week in the Apotex Inc. v....more

Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Lupin Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Senju PharmaceuticalEarlier this month, the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court judgment of obviousness in ANDA litigation under the Hatch Waxman Act having a long provenance of earlier litigation, in Senju...more

81 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4

"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:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×