Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
United Therapeutics Corporation v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-2217, 2023-1021 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2023) In the Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent case this week, the Court considered questions...more
Today, the Supreme Court again disregarded the views of the Federal government regarding whether to grant certiorari, here in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, and in some ways the only positive outcome is that...more
After the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States regarding Teva Pharms USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, et al., the Solicitor General filed its brief amicus...more
Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 2019-2402 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2020) - In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed a lingering question about venue following the...more
This month we highlight a new law requiring notification to the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice of biosimilar litigation settlements and perhaps the end of a long-running Mylan venue dispute in Delaware....more
The Situation: The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act was considered in a November 2017 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Result: The court found that the commercial...more
On June 12, 2017, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Thomas in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., the United States Supreme Court considered the complex statutory scheme that attempts to expedite resolution of patent...more
The US Supreme Court this week held that the broad venue provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) does not apply to patent law—at least, when the defendant is a domestic entity. This decision arises after years of judicial...more
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari in a case that will give pharmaceutical companies pause when considering whether to settle patent challenges under Hatch-Waxman. The Supreme Court’s...more
Generic and branded pharma companies alike are waiting with baited breath to see if the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue of personal jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman patent cases this term. After a broad ruling from the...more
The Supreme Court recently declined to hear several patent cases, thus leaving the decisions by the Federal Circuit intact. Issues that were not taken up by the Supreme Court include (1) whether performing patented methods...more
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint this week against Endo Pharmaceuticals and several generic companies, alleging that these companies entered into anticompetitive “reverse payment” settlements of...more
Clare v. Chrysler Group LLC (No. 2015-1999, 3/31/16) (Prost, Moore, Wallach) - Moore, J. Affirming summary judgment of non-infringement of patents related to storage compartment for pickup trucks. The Court rejected...more
The FTC has recently weighed in again on the evolving interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2013 opinion in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013). The agency submitted an amicus brief to the Third Circuit in the appeal of...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
Addressing for the first time whether reverse settlement agreements involving non-cash consideration merit antitrust scrutiny, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district court, applying the...more
In the first decision by a federal appeals court interpreting the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in FTC v. Actavis, the Third Circuit recently held in King Drug Co. of Florence v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. that so-called...more
Supreme Court Holds Good Faith Belief of Patent Invalidity Is Not a Defense to Induced Infringement - Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Supr. Ct. May 26, 2015): Pharmaceutical patents commonly include...more
Case Name: Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2015) (Circuit Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Hughes, J.) (Appeal from S.D. Fla., Middlebrooks, J.) - Drug...more
Case Name: Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., v. Sandoz, Inc., Fed. Cir. Nos. 2012-1567, -1568, -1569, -1570, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10229 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2015) (Circuit Judges Moore, Mayer, and Wallach presiding; Opinion by Moore,...more
Recently, the Third Circuit issued the first federal appellate decision interpreting the Supreme Court's landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.[1], potentially greatly expanding the scope of settling parties in reverse...more
A little more than one year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis Inc. and affirmed that antitrust principles apply to reverse payment settlement agreements — those in which a brand-name drug...more
In This Issue: - INTRODUCTION - WHAT ARE REVERSE PAYMENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS? ..The Basic Framework of Hatch-Waxman Litigation ..The Federal Trade Commission’s View of Reverse Payment Settlements and Its...more
On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision that addressed a “reverse payment” settlement agreement between a brand-name pharmaceutical company (plaintiff patent holder) and multiple generic drug companies...more