IS THE A IN ANDA BEGINNING TO MEAN ANTITRUST?
On March 28, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey decision that Mylan Laboratories Ltd. (“Mylan”) induced...more
Invega Trinza® (paliperidone palmitate) - Case Name: Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Mylan Labs. Ltd., No. 2023-2042, 2025 WL 946390 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2025) (Circuit Judges Dyk, Prost, and District Judge Goldberg presiding;...more
Minocin® (minocycline) - Case Name: Melinta Therapeutics, LLC v. Nexus Pharms., Inc., Civ. No. 21-2636, 2024 WL 4799896 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2024) (Kness, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Minocin® (minocycline);...more
OxyContin® (oxycodone HCl) - Case Name: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., No. 2023-1953, 2024 WL 5244764 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 30, 2024) (Circuit Judges Prost, Reyna, and Taranto presiding; Opinion by Prost, J.)...more
Case Name: Purdue Pharma L.P v. Accord Healthcare Inc., Civ. No. 22-913-WCB, 2024 WL 4120717 (D. Del. Sept 9, 2024) (Bryson, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: OxyContin® (oxycodone HCl); U.S. Patent No. 11,304,908 (“the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., No. 24-1061 (Fed. Cir. 2024), holding that “a first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring claim cannot...more
One of the anticipated consequences of the Supreme Court's Loper decision is that it will unleash judges to impose their statutory interpretations of administrative agencies' applications of the law within their areas of...more
On August 13, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential ruling in Allergan v. MSN Laboratories (Case No. 24-1061). This decision reversed the District of Delaware's application of the Federal Circuit precedent in In re:...more
Last year, the Federal Circuit surprised many observers of patent law in In re Cellect LLC, 81 F.4th 1216, 1228–29 (Fed. Cir. 2023) when—for the first time—it affirmed a U.S. Patent & Trademark Office decision cancelling an...more
Obviousness Analysis Does Not Consider Unclaimed Limitations - In Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Usa, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1258, the Federal Circuit held that district court erred by adding unclaimed...more
On January 18, 2024, the USPTO rejected a "contingent" terminal disclaimer filed by Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Acadia) for a patent it owns that is being challenged in a pending litigation as invalid for obviousness-type...more
On December 27, 2023, Chief Judge Catherine Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted a motion for preliminary injunction by Natera Inc. enjoining NeoGenomics Laboratories Inc. from...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
This case addresses the legal framework for determining whether prior art anticipates a claimed range. The appropriate legal framework applies a different test depending on whether the prior art discloses a point within the...more
In an ANDA case in the District of Delaware, the court has rejected an obviousness challenge to a patented method of increasing survival in patients having prostate cancer. The court found that early clinical trial results...more
In its recent review of a district court decision the Federal Circuit characterized as "a thorough opinion," the Federal Circuit affirmed invalidation for obviousness of four claims from four different Orange Book-listed...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court judgment of invalidity for obviousness and for noninfringement for a series of patents challenged in ANDA litigation, in Genentech Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. In doing so, a...more
Case Name: Salix Pharms., Ltd. v. Norwich Pharms., Inc., C.A. No. 20-cv-430-RGA, 2022 WL 3225381 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2022) (Andrews, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Xifaxan® (rifaximin); U.S. Patents Nos. 7,612,199...more
Case Name: Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. No. 20-5212 (KM)(ESK) (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2022) (McNulty, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: QuilliChew ER® (methylphenidate); U.S. Patents Nos. 9,545,399 (“the...more
In a crowded pharmaceutical art, the deficiencies thereof being so patent that the FDA encouraged industry to address and correct them, concerning a formulation developed to address the opioid crisis raging earlier in this...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
Case Name: Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 18-cv-734, 2021 WL 5323737 (D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2021) (Cecchi, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Invega Sustenna® (paliperidone palmitate); U.S. Patent No....more
There are some cases where the Federal Circuit makes its decision based on the eternal verities of patent law (insofar as there are any eternal verities in patent law). One such decision arose earlier this month when the...more
Joint inventorship has been called "one of the muddiest concepts in the muddy metaphysics of patent law" because the "exact parameters of what constitutes joint inventorship are quite difficult to define." Mueller Brass Co....more
Case Name: Auxilium Pharms., Inc. v. FCB I LLC, Civ. No. 20-16456, 2021 WL 2802537 (D.N.J. July 6, 2021) (Vazquez, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Testim® (testosterone gel); U.S. Patents Nos. 7,320,968 (“the ’968...more