Teva Pharmaceuticals

News & Analysis as of

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

Contractual Duty to Deal Does Not Equal Antitrust Duty to Deal

Addressing for the first time whether a patent holder under a contractual duty to deal is also subject to an antitrust duty to deal, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld dismissal of a putative antitrust...more

Court Report - July 2014 #3

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al. v. Glenmark Generics Inc. USA 1:14-cv-00877; filed July 3, 2014 in the District Court of...more

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: BMS owns the ’244 patent, which covers a nucleoside analogue composed of two regions: a carbocyclic ring and a guanine base. Nucleoside analogues are known to mimic the activity of...more

Federal Circuit Looks for a Different Kind of Unexpected Results in BMS v. Teva

In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that BMS’s Baraclude® patent is invalid as obvious. In so doing, the court gave little weight to...more

Court Report - June 2014 #5

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. et al. v. Mylan Inc. et al. 1:14-cv-00777; filed June 19, 2014 in the District Court of...more

Judge Griesa Orders Parties to Brief Whether a Patent Prosecution Bar Prevents Defense Counsel From Participating in an Inter...

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. Inter Partes Review. Case Number: 1:12-cv-08060-GWG (Dkt. 68) - One of twelve defendants in patent suits brought by Endo petitioned the...more

Federal Circuit Issues Decision Affirming Obviousness of a Molecule Patent Claim

On June 12, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming the obviousness of a patent claim directed to a drug molecule. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., ___...more

Court Report - June 2014

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. 3:14-cv-03558; filed June 4, 2014 in the District Court of...more

Latest Trends in E-Discovery: The Focus on Proportionality and Cooperation

When asked what has been the most significant development in federal litigation during his time on the bench, United States Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola of the D.C. District responded, simply: “the impact upon the...more

High Court Will Take Up Standard of Review of Factual Findings in Claim Construction

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al. - In a case that will likely determine the standard of review used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over lower court claim constructions,...more

IP Buzz - April 2014

In this issue: - Endo Pharmaceuticals v. Actavis: An Analysis from a Transactional Perspective - Supreme Court to Consider Federal Circuit De Novo Review of Claim Construction in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc....more

Pfizer Inc. et. al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. (Fed Cir)

Case Name: Pfizer Inc. et. al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al., Civ. Nos. 2012-1576, 2012-1601, 2012-1602, 2012-1603, 2012-1604, 2012-1605, 2012-1607, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2242 (Fed. Cir. February 6, 2014) (Circuit...more

Eli Lilly And Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.

Case Name: Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Civ. No. 10-cv-01376-TWP-DKL, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43885 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2014) (Walton-Pratt, J.). Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Alimta®...more

Supreme Court to Consider Federal Circuit De Novo Review of Claim Construction in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

On March 31, 2014, the Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. to hear Teva’s appeal of a Federal Circuit decision invalidating several patents on Teva’s multi-billion dollar...more

Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

Case Name: Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Case Nos. 08-627-LPS, 11-81-LPS, 09-143-LPS, 10-285-LPS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41865 (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2014) (Stark, J.) - Drug Product and...more

In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

Case Name: In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-995 (WHW), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9257 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2014) (Walls, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Lamictal® (lamotrigine);...more

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

Case Name: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. Nos. 11-2037-SHS; 12-5083-SHS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5031 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2014) (Stein, J.). Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: OxyContin® (oxycodone);...more

Supreme Court Agrees to Take Case Assessing Scope of Review for Claim Construction

The Supreme Court on Monday, March 31, 2014, granted certiorari in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., Case 13-854 (Mar. 31, 2014), a case that has the potential to overturn years of precedent leading back to the...more

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz

Earlier today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. case (Supreme Court docket number 13-854). The sole issue on appeal is encapsulated by the question presented...more

Federal Circuit Upholds Lyrica Patents

In a non-precedential decision issued February 6, 2014, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision that upheld the four Orange Book listed patents for Pfizer’s Lyrica® product. According to the court’s rules, the...more

Federal Circuit Finds “Molecular Weight” to Be Insolubly Ambiguous

In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit invalidated a number of claims directed to a polymer defined by its “molecular weight” because the term was ambiguous, and Applicants’ conflicting...more

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013)

A claim term that can have different meanings or values depending on the method used to measure it renders the claim indefinite because it is impossible for a potential infringer to discern the boundaries of the claim. This...more

23 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1