IS THE A IN ANDA BEGINNING TO MEAN ANTITRUST?
Case Name: Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Nos. 2022-1147, 2022-1149, 2022-1150, 2022-1151, 2023 WL 2994166 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2023) (Circuit Judges Lourie, Cunningham, and Stark presiding; Opinion by Lourie, J.) (Appeal from...more
Generic manufacturers seeking to put an end to Hatch-Waxman Act patent litigation over a branded company’s Orange Book-listed patents can seek to do so by converting from Paragraph IV (“PIV”) patent certifications to...more
Case Name: Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz. Inc., Nos. 2017-1499, 2017-1500, 2017-1558, 2017-1559, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 26312 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2017) (Circuit Judges Moore, Mayer, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Hughes, J.)...more
Case Name: Millennium Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Nos. 2015-2066, 2016-1008, -1009, -1010, -1109, -1110, -1283, -1762, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12702 (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2017) (Circuit Judges Newman, Mayer, and O’Malley...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s judgment that the challenged claims were invalid for obviousness. The Court also vacated judgments in separate actions that had been entered based on...more
Case Name: Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Civ. No. 17-275(FLW), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78002 (D.N.J. May 23, 2017) (Wolfson, J.)....more
In Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court decision that invalidated one of the Orange Book-listed patents covering the anti-cancer drug Velcade. In so doing, the court...more
On July 17, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, in a precedential opinion in Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 2015-2066 (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2017), a district court...more
In multiple ANDA litigations against multiple defendants, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. had several of its asserted claims held invalid for obviousness at the district court. The Federal Circuit reversed these decisions...more
Case Name: Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 12-cv-207-JRG, 15-cv-347-JRG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135088 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2016) (Gilstrap, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Combigan® (brimonidine...more
Case Name: Pfizer Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., C.A. No. 13-1110-GMS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52762 (D. Del. Apr. 20, 2016) (Sleet, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Toviaz® (fesoterodine fumarate); U.S. Patents Nos....more
Case Name: Spectrum Pharms., Inc. v. Burwell, No. 15-5166, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10095 (D.C. Cir. June 3, 2016) (Circuit Judges Griffith, Cavanaugh, and Wilkins presiding; Opinion by Griffith) (Appeal from D.D.C., Lamberth,...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. 3:16-cv-02703; filed May 18, 2016 in the Northern District of California. ...more
Case Name: Spectrum Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 2015-1407, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17313 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2015) (Circuit Judges Lourie, Wallach, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Lourie, J.) (Appeal from D. Nev., Navarro,...more
Case Name: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., Civ. No. 3:12-cv-03289-PGS-LHG, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113710 (D.N.J. Aug. 27, 2015) (Sheridan, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Emend® (fosaprepitant...more
Case Name: Allergan, Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., Civ. No. 2014-1275, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13616 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 4, 2015) (Circuit Judges Lourie, Linn, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Lourie, J.) (Appeal from E.D. Tex., Schneider,...more
Last week the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court's finding of invalidity and non-infringement in ANDA litigation between Spectrum Pharmaceuticals and Sandoz. In so doing, the Court deferred to the factual...more
On Oct. 8, the House Republican caucus did not select a candidate for Speaker of the House and selection has been delayed. The current Speaker, John Boehner (R-OH), had announced that he would step down and retire from...more
Case Name: Spectrum Pharms., Inc. v. Burwell, Civ. No. 15-631 (RCL), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73218 (D.D.C. May 27, 2015) (Lamberth, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Fusilev® (levoleucovorin); N/A - Nature of...more
Reviewing the district court’s framing of the obviousness inquiry and determination of no motivation to combine for clear error, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination...more
The Federal Circuit showed once again the importance of a district court's factual findings (and the deference the appellate court gives those findings, particularly when supported by expert testimony), in InSite Vision Inc....more
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
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: UTC claimed that Sandoz induced infringement of the ’007 patent by instructing physicians to dilute its product for use intravenously. The asserted claim required a particular...more
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
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