News & Analysis as of

Hospira Generic Drugs

Robins Kaplan LLP

Par Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Adrenalin® (epinephrine injection) - Case Name: Par Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., No. 2020-1273, 2020 WL 6846347 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 23, 2020) (Circuit Judges Dyk, Taranto, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by Taranto, J.)...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

It has long been understood that claim construction can, and frequently is, dispositive in patent litigation.  This truism was the basis for the Federal Circuit affirming the District Court's decision against a generic drug...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 946 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2020) (Circuit Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Moore presiding; Opinion by Lourie, J.) (Appeal from N.D. Ill., Pallmeyer, J.)....more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Belcher Pharms., LLC v. Hospira, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Belcher Pharms., LLC v. Hospira, Inc., No. 17-775-LPS, 2020 WL 1650535 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2020) (Stark, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: epinephrine injection; U.S. Patent No. 9,283,197 (“the ’197...more

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Biosimilar Litigation Trends and Lessons Learned in 2019

It has been nearly 10 years since the U.S. Biosimilars Pathway (the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act) was enacted. The first biosimilar product in U.S. history was approved and launched in 2015. Ten biosimilars...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Eli Lilly and Co. v. Hospira, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

WHILE THE DISTRICT COURT’S FINDING OF LITERAL INFRINGEMENT WAS REVERSED, THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT’S FINDING OF INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENT BECAUSE THE NARROWING AMENDMENT WAS...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Civ. Nos. 16 C 651, 17 C 7903, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212916 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 17, 2018) (Pallmeyer, J.)....more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hospira, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hospira, Inc., Civ. No. 12-3460-TWP-MPB, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100550 (S.D. Ind. June 15, 2018) (Pratt, J.)....more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Hospira, Inc. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Hospira, Inc. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC, No. 15-cv-697, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9307 (D. Del. Jan. 22, 2018) (Andrews, J.)....more

Robins Kaplan LLP

The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., 2014-1469, 2014-1504 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2018) (Circuit Judges Dyk, Wallach, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Hughes, J.) (Appeal from D. Del., Andrews, J.)....more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Top Developments in Hatch-Waxman Litigation for March 2018

This month, we highlight several significant decisions including The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc. and Index Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. and the Trump administration’s legislative proposal to increase...more

Knobbe Martens

The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc.

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Dyk, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: A distribution agreement qualifies as an invalidating “offer for sale”...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira, Inc. 874 F.3d 724, No. 17-1115, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21201 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 26, 2017) (Circuit Judges Newman, Lourie, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Lourie, J.; Dissent by...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

The Federal Circuit continues its explication of the law of obviousness post-KSR Int'l. v. Teleflex Inc. (and Judge Pauline Newman continues to disagree with her brethren in some regards) in a decision handed down last...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira Inc., 14-cv-915-RGA, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139721 (D. Del. Oct. 7, 2016) (Andrews, J.). Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Invanz® (ertapenem); U.S. Patents Nos. 5,952,323...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2016)- Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Angiomax® (bivalirudin); U.S. Patents Nos. 7,582,727 (“the ’727 patent”) and 7,598,343 (“the...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Biosimilar Litigation Update

With the U.S. biosimilar pathway created by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) now fully up and running, there are now seven ongoing biosimilar litigations in the U.S. Here are brief updates on recent...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., Civil No. 15-2077 (MLC), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45826 (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2016) (Cooper, J.) - Drug Product and Patents-in-Suit: Aloxi® (palonosetron); U.S. Patents Nos....more

Burr & Forman

Lowered Risk for Inventors Who Use Contract Product Development or Manufacturing

Burr & Forman on

On July 11, in The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a contract manufacturer's sale of manufacturing services to an inventor did not constitute a commercial sale of the patented invention for...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

En Banc: Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Application of On-Sale Bar to Contract Manufacturers

Pharmaceutical and biotech companies breathed a sigh of relief Monday when the Federal Circuit unanimously ruled in a precedential opinion that the mere sale of manufacturing services to create embodiments of a patented...more

Troutman Pepper

Federal Circuit Finds That Use of a Contract Manufacturer Does Not Trigger the On-Sale Bar Provision

Troutman Pepper on

The court’s decision provides insight into which activities trigger the on-sale bar provision. On July 11, in The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., No. 14-1469 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

Federal Circuit Limits On-Sale Bar’s Reach

Ballard Spahr LLP on

If you were concerned that outsourcing the manufacture of your invention before you filed your patent application triggered a "sale" that could put your patent at risk, you can rest easy. In The Medicines Company v....more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Amgen and Hospira Square Off Over BPCIA Private Right of Action After Amgen v. Apotex Ruling

Amgen and Hospira have fired off dueling letters to the court in their litigation over Amgen’s Epogen biosimilar, debating whether the U.S. biosimilar statute, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Court Report - February 2016

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Astellas Pharma Inc. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al. 1:15-cv-00857; filed September 22, 2015 in the District Court of...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Cubist Pharms., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Cubist Pharms., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 2015-1197, 2015-1204, 2015-1259, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19662 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2015) (Circuit Judges Wallach, Bryson, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Bryson, J.) (Appeal...more

28 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide