Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
We have been monitoring the dispute between Edwards Lifesciences Corp. (“Edwards”) and Meril Life Sciences Pvt., Ltd. (“Meril”) before and after the initial Federal Circuit decision. The dispute focused on whether Meril’s...more
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., has garnered significant attention, especially concerning the application of the “safe harbor” provision under 35 U.S.C. §...more
The Federal Circuit considered the relevance of an alleged infringer’s intent in a safe harbor analysis in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Scis. Pvt. The District Court had previously granted summary judgment that...more
A fractured affirmance of a district court decision to dismiss an infringement action under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) was the occasion for the Federal Circuit to illustrate the continued debate over the scope of the safe harbor...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that the 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) safe harbor protecting certain infringing acts undertaken for regulatory approval applied to an alleged infringer’s importation of...more
Gain a comprehensive understanding of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA essentials, a critical competency for legal and business professionals in the biopharmaceutical arena. Attend ACI’s Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA Proficiency Series...more
The Federal Circuit will consider the relevance of an alleged infringer’s intent in a safe harbor analysis in the appeal of Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Scis. Pvt.1 The District Court granted summary judgment that...more
Congress’s protection from patent infringement for drug developers created under the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 (Act) has been extensively litigated over the past three+ decades, but the scope of the so-called “safe harbor...more
Are patented products that are not themselves subject to FDA approval, but used to develop products that are subject to FDA approval, protected under the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor? While courts have reached different...more
On January 4, 2022, Judge Andrews from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.’s (“Sarepta”) Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a complaint for infringement of U.S. Patent...more
Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., No. 19-CV-06593 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2020). On October 16, 2020, the US District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion for summary...more
This somewhat arcane question took on significant, real-world consequences when Judge Andrews of the Delaware District Court denied Hospira’s JMOL to overturn a jury’s $70 million award to Amgen for Hospira’s manufacture and...more
The Supreme Court denied certiorari today in Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., thereby leaving intact the Federal Circuit's fractured precedent on the question of whether post-approval...more
Case Name: Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms. LLC, 2014-1736, -1737, -1738, -1739, -1740, -1741, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16908 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2015) (Circuit Judges Moore, Mayer, and Linn presiding; Opinion by Linn, J.) (Appeal...more
The Federal Circuit recently provided additional clarity about the scope of the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor. In Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the appellate court sharpened the line between...more
The Hatch Waxman statute created a safe-harbor provision, found at 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), that allows ANDA filers and others to practice patented inventions without fear of infringement liability, provided the acts are...more
In This Issue: Federal Courts Debate Safe Harbor Exemption for Patent Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e) Following Merck v. Integra; If I Prioritize Examination of My Application, Should the Patent Office?;...more