IS THE A IN ANDA BEGINNING TO MEAN ANTITRUST?
Specify the Steps of Information Manipulation or Lose under § 101 - In Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd. Appeal No. 22-2216, the Federal Circuit held that patent claims that merely recite result-orientated, functional...more
The Federal Circuit once again had an opportunity to opine on the extent of behavior by a generic drugmaker who opts to accept a "section viii carve-out" in its FDA approval (resulting in a so-called "skinny label) on...more
I. Introduction - No pharmaceutical antitrust decision has had more impact than the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, a decision which officially defined the term “reverse payment...more
The case relates to so-called "skinny labels," in which the filer of an Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") seeks FDA approval to market a generic version of a branded drug, but "carves out" from its label certain...more
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland (137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017)), the venue statute for patent cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), has been interpreted to mean that venue is proper only where the defendant “resides” or...more
The question of the proper court for a branded pharmaceutical maker to bring suit against an Abbreviated New Drug Application filer under the Hatch-Waxman Act is surprisingly unsettled seeing as the Act was enacted in 1984. ...more
Somewhat remarkably, there is no settled Federal Circuit precedent regarding where a patentee can bring suit against a generic competitor in Hatch-Waxman litigation under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). While recognizing that this...more
In 1984, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) shepherded a grand legislative compromise through Congress that balanced the rights and solved inefficient regulatory consequences for both branded and generic...more
BECAUSE DELAWARE WAS AN IMPROPER VENUE FOR DEFENDANT MYLAN, AND DEFENDANT 3M DEMONSTRATED THAT VARIOUS FACTORS WEIGHED IN FAVOR OF A TRANSFER, THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA. Case...more
THE COURT GRANTED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT’S ANTITRUST AND PATENT MISUSE COUNTERCLAIMS AND RELATED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES. Case Name: Duke Univ. v. Akorn, Inc., Civ. No. 3:18-cv-14035-BRM-TJB, 2019 U.S. Dist....more
Please see full Chart below for more information....more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2149, et al. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2019) - In a lengthy decision following a bench trial, the Court addressed a matter of...more
Can a party that did not submit an abbreviated biologics license application or an abbreviated new drug application, but will market the biosimilar or generic product after U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval, be sued...more
A Complaint Identifying Infringing Products and the Patents Allegedly Infringed, Accompanied by Statements that the Products Meet All Elements of at Least One Claim of the Asserted Patents, May be Sufficient to Meet the...more
In Mylan v. Aurobindo the Circuit affirms the grant of a preliminary injunction based upon the infringement of one of the three patents in suit. However, the panel reverses the injunction as to the other two patents based on...more
Last Wednesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals partially vacated the judgment of the district court in In re Actos End-Payor Antitrust Litigation. In doing so, the Second Circuit allowed only plaintiffs’ claims that...more
On-Sale Bar Is No Bar for Selling Manufacturing Services to the Inventor - Addressing what constitutes an invalidating “sale” under § 102(b), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc affirmed the...more
The District Court of Delaware denied defendant Wockhardt’s motion to dismiss a patent infringement action based on the reasonable inference that plaintiff AstraZeneca may need to assert its patent rights in the future. On...more
180-Day Notice Period for Biosimilar Approval Is Always Mandatory and Enforceable by Injunction - Amgen Inc., v. Apotex Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016) - A year after analyzing the patent dance and notice...more
Sleet, J. Defendant PSI’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied. Defendant PSL’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim is...more
Case Name: Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., Civil Action No. 14-2250 (MLC), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7555 (D.N.J. Jan 22, 2016) (Cooper, J.)... Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Vascepa® (icosapent ethyl); U.S....more
Fallon, M. J. Report and recommendation recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim be denied in part and granted in part. The disputed technology in...more
Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e), filing an Abbreviated Biologics License Application (aBLA)—like filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA)— can be an act of patent infringement resulting in ‘artificial’ injury to a patentee....more
Nunc Pro Tunc Assignments Insufficient To Confer Retroactive Standing - In ALPS SOUTH, LLC v. OHIO WILLOW WOOD CO., Appeal Nos. 2013-1452, 2013-1488, 2014-1147, and 2014-1426, the Federal Circuit reversed the denial of a...more