GENERICally Speaking - Vol. 4, No. 1

by Robins Kaplan LLP
Contact

The Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Life Sciences practice groups at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. are pleased to offer the latest edition of their quarterly publication regarding ANDA patent litigation issues and the generics business, GENERICally Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Litigation Bulletin.

Taking on an ANDA patent litigation requires significant corporate resources, time, and money. Staying on top of industry news and outcomes, following trends in the judiciary and the steps others are taking, and keeping informed of recently-enacted rules and legislation are critical.

This bulletin provides you and your company with some of the knowledge beneficial to remaining attentive to the complexity of ANDA patent litigation. We hope you find it helpful.

Relevant Court Decisions

  • Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Actavis, Inc. (Fed Cir)
    Defendants did not have either an express or implied license to practice the inventions claimed in the patents in suit.
  • Senju Pharmas. Co., Ltd. v. Apotex Inc. (Fed Cir)
    Amended and/or new claims of a reexamined patent does not create new causes of action for patentee, separate from the causes of action created by the original patent. Therefore, motion to dismiss second action on the basis of claim preclusion was affirmed.
  • Shire Dev. LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc. (Fed Cir)
    In light of district court’s erroneous claim construction, finding of infringement was reversed and case remanded.
  • Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc. (Fed Cir)
    Because ANDA product is significantly different from the compositions tested in patentee’s study, non-infringing holding is affirmed; section 112 holdings of non-enablement and lack of written description are reversed when patents adequately describe operable embodiments of the invention.
  • GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc. (Fed Cir)
    District court’s finding that the written description requirement is met is affirmed because “solvates” of dutasteride are not distinguished by a particular performance property. 
  • Takeda Pharma. Co. Ltd. v. Zydus Pharmas. USA, Inc. (Fed Cir)
    Finding of infringement reversed in light of erroneous claim construction which imported an improper 10% deviation of measurement; finding of no invalidity affirmed when defendant failed to prove Section 112 arguments.
  • Pfizer Inc. et. al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. (Fed Cir)
    Affirming construction of the term “4-amino-3-(2-methylpropyl) butanoic acid,” judgment of non-infringement based on that construction and validity of the patents.
  • The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc.
    The parties failed to meet their respective burdens of proving infringement and invalidity concerning patents that claim maximum impurity levels within pharmaceutical batches.
  • Eli Lilly and Company  v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.
    Patent in suit was not obvious because a prior-art mouse study did not necessarily translate into the invention’s being carried out in a human, and also because certain prior-art references taught away from the claimed invention.
  • Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
    The patents-in-suit were obvious because the prior art not only disclosed that the use of risedronate to effectively treat osteoporosis, but they also disclosed dosing regimens that would lead a POSA to expect a linear relationship for the dosage schedule to extend to the claimed monthly regimen.
  • G.D. Searle LLC  v. Lupin Pharms, Inc.
    Finding the reissued patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 251 and invalid based on obviousness-type double patenting.
  • Par Pharms., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc.
    Because combining nanotechnology with megestrol acetate would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art—due to the viscosity and inter-patient variability associated with the micronized formulation— patent-in-suit was invalid.
  • Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Shionogi, Inc.
    Because there is no pre/post FDA approval dichotomy under the safe-harbor provision, plaintiffs motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) was granted.
  • Endo Pharmas. Inc. v. Mylan Pharmas. Inc.
    After claim construction resulted in stipulation of infringement, asserted claims were not invalid as anticipated, obvious or failing to meet the written-description and enablement requirements.
  • In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
    Where a settlement agreement that resolves a Hatch-Waxman patent litigation does not include a reverse payment, the Supreme Court’s FTC v. Actavis analysis is inapplicable.
  • Warner Chilcott Co. LLC v. Lupin Ltd.
    Because the amount of APIs and their method of administration was not available to a POSA in the prior art, the patent-in-suit was not invalid as obvious.
  • Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
    The asserted claims of patents covering reformulated OxyContin were infringed but found to be invalid.
  • Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
    An ANDA product having a pH range of 6.8-7.2 infringes, literally and under the doctrine of equivalents (amendments related only tangentially to pH), a claim term related to pH of “about 7.3;” and given the unpredictability of ophthalmic formulation, among other things, the patents in suit are not invalid.
  • Apotex, Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co.
    Motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was granted where patent-in-suit was previously disclaimed by plaintiff.

New ANDA Cases

ANDA Litigation Settlements

ANDA Approvals

Generic Launches

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Robins Kaplan LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Robins Kaplan LLP
Contact
more
less

Robins Kaplan LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*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.