Teva Pharmaceuticals

News & Analysis as of

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

Case Name: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 769 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 20, 2014) (Chief Judge Prost, Circuit Judges Newman, Plager, Lourie, Dyk, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, Chen, and...more

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

Case Name: Warner Chilcott Co, LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Nos. 2014-1439, 2014-1441, 2014-1444, 2014-1445, 2014-1446, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21946 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (Circuit Judges Lourie, Reyna and Taranto...more

Will Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Change Patent Litigation?

On January 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first patent decision of the current term, rejecting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s long-standing practice of reviewing district court patent...more

Teva receives license to three patents covering oxycodone dosage forms

Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Case Number: 1:13-cv-04606-SHS; 1:14-cv-02357-SHS - Teva settled with plaintiffs in two...more

Court Report - February 2015 #2

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. et al. v. Roxane Laboratories Inc. 1:15-cv-00128; filed February 5, 2015 in the District...more

1+ year delay post-answer in counterclaiming for invalidity and non-infringement is acceptable under Rule 15

Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Grüenthal GmbH v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Barr Laboratories, Inc. Case Number: 1:12-cv-08060-TPG-GWG - Teva delayed more than one year between answering a complaint...more

Practice Considerations Post Teva v. Sandoz

In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, slip op. 574 U.S. __ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that underlying factual issues resolved while formally construing a disputed patent claim term at the...more

Generic Drug Cos. Face Failure-To-Warn Claims In Calif.

On Jan. 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal involving failure-to-warn claims against generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. Teva Pharms. USA Inc. v. Super. Ct., No. 13-956 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2015). This...more

Product Liability Alert: Failure-To-Warn Suit Against Generic Drug Maker Proceeds Despite Argument of Federal Preemption

On January 20, 2015, the U.S Supreme Court denied cert in Teva v. Superior Court of California, Orange County, refusing to review a California state court ruling allowing patients to proceed with claims that Teva...more

Court Report - January 2015 #2

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Tris Pharma Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc. et al. 1:15-cv-00068; filed January 21, 2015 in the District Court of...more

Generic Drug Manufacturers to Face Failure-to-Warn Claims in California

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal involving failure-to-warn claims against generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. Teva Pharms. USA Inc. v. Super. Ct., No. 13-956, 2015 WL 231967 (U.S. Jan. 20,...more

De Novo Review of Claim Construction No Longer the De Facto Standard

On January 20, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, rejected the de novo review standard applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when reviewing all claim construction...more

Supreme Court Changes Appellate Review Standard For Claim Construction

This week, the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit's long standing practice of applying a de novo review standard to district court claim construction decisions. Instead, in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. V. Sandoz,...more

In re: Nexium Plaintiffs Seek New Trial

As reported previously, the first post-Actavis jury verdict in a “reverse payment” antitrust case handed a win to the defendants. Now, plaintiffs in In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation have moved for a new...more

Court Report - December 2014 #4

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc. 1:14-cv-01494; filed December 18 2014 in the District...more

Court Report - December 2014 #3

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Eli Lilly and Company et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC 1:14-cv-01474 filed December 11, 2014 in the District Court...more

Supreme Court 2014 Patent Preview

On average, the U.S. Supreme Court historically hears fewer than one patent case each term. For example, in the 14 years between 1982 and 1995, the Court decided only five patent cases. In the seven years between 1995 and...more

First Post-Actavis Jury Verdict Goes to Defendants on Causation Question

After six weeks of trial and two days of deliberation, the jury has returned its verdict in favor of the defendants in In re: Nexium. This trial began as a challenge to the allegedly anticompetitive effects of the settlements...more

Court Report - December 2014

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. 1:14-cv-01451; filed December 2, 2014 in...more

No En Banc Review for Use of Post Invention Information in Obviousness Analysis

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms USA, Inc. - Declining to reconsider its panel decision holding that a pharmaceutical was obvious where a skilled artisan would have altered the lead prior art compound in the...more

Court Report -- Part II: November 2014

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Glaxosmithkline LLC et al. 2:14-cv-06627; filed November 19, 2014 in the Eastern District of...more

In re: Nexium: Ranbaxy’s Motion for a Mistrial to Be Argued Today

Today, the Nexium district court will hear arguments on the Ranbaxy defendants’ motion for a mistrial. As we have previously reported, In re: Nexium is the first pay-for-delay case to go to trial since the Supreme Court’s...more

What’s Next for In re: Nexium: Defendants’ Motions for Directed Verdicts Likely to Turn on Sufficiency of Expert Testimony

As we previously reported, the In re: Nexium trial is the first pay-for-delay trial in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis decision. But if the Nexium defendants have it their way, plaintiffs’...more

Court Report - November 2014 #2

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al. v. Pharmadax USA, Inc. et al. 1:14-cv-07105; filed November 3, 2014 in the...more

Court Report - October 2014 #4

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al. v. Pharmadax USA, Inc. et al. 8:14-cv-01710; filed October 23, 2014 in the Central...more

62 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3