News & Analysis as of

Safe Harbors Pharmaceutical Patents

Fenwick & West LLP

Federal Circuit Reaffirms Scope of Safe Harbor Defense to Patent Infringement

Fenwick & West LLP on

In 2019, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sued Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. for patent infringement in the Northern District of California, with Fenwick representing Meril in the district court case and the recent appellate...more

Proskauer - Minding Your Business

The Broad Impact of Edwards v. Meril on the Safe Harbor Provision

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

BakerHostetler

IP Litigation Newsletter - April 2024

BakerHostetler on

The safe harbor exception in 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) applies “solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information” to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Federal Circuit interpreted the...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. (Fed. Cir. 2024)

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

McDermott Will & Emery

What Use Does § 271(e)(1) Safe Harbor “Solely” Protect?

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

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Addresses Scope of Medical Device and Drug Infringement Safe Harbor

WilmerHale on

On March 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., addressing whether the act of importing two heart valve systems for a medical conference was within the...more

Goodwin

District Court Grants Summary Judgment and Invalidates Patent in REGENXBIO v. Sarepta Litigation

Goodwin on

On January 5, 2024, in litigation between REGENXBIO and Sarepta Therapeutics, Judge Richard Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware District Court granted summary judgment for Sarepta and ruled that...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

In Wake of In re Cellect, District Court Interprets Safe Harbor Statute and Finds Patent Not Invalid for Obviousness-Type Double...

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently held on summary judgment that a patent with 2,295 days of combined patent term adjustment (PTA) and patent term extension (PTE) was not invalid for obviousness-type...more

American Conference Institute (ACI)

[Webinar] 3rd Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA - October 10th - 26th, 1:00 pm EST

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

Goodwin

Sarepta and Catalent File Answers in REGENXBIO v. Sarepta Litigation

Goodwin on

Sarepta and Catalent File Answers in REGENXBIO v. Sarepta Litigation - As we previously reported, REGENXBIO Inc. and the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania filed suit in Delaware against Sarepta Therapeutics,...more

American Conference Institute (ACI)

[Event] 21st Advanced Summit on Life Sciences Patents - May 18th - 19th, New York, NY

ACI’s 21st Advanced Summit on Life Sciences Patents returns to New York City, this May, to provide practical insights on how to maximize your patent term and develop strategies to enhance global protections for your patent...more

Fish & Richardson

Federal Circuit to Consider the Relevance of an Alleged Infringer’s “Intent” in a Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor Analysis

Fish & Richardson on

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

Troutman Pepper

Safe Harbor Exemption May Not Be So Safe

Troutman Pepper on

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

Fish & Richardson

REGENXBIO v. SAREPTA: Make Sure You’re Safely Within the Safe Harbor Before Using a “Research Tool”

Fish & Richardson on

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

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

Delaware Judge Denies Sarepta Protection Under Hatch-Waxman “Safe Harbor”

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

Proskauer - Life Sciences

A Guiding Light for the Research Safe Harbor and “Research Tools”?

Allele v. Pfizer – The Basics. On April 23, 2021 Pfizer, Inc., BioNTechSE, and BioNTech US, Inc. (“Pfizer and BioNTech”) filed a joint reply supporting of their previously filed motion to dismiss a patent infringement...more

Sunstein LLP

Does the Defense Production Act Provide a Safe Harbor Against Infringement Claims?

Sunstein LLP on

The federal government’s ability to compel manufacture of supplies under the Defense Production Act has lately been in the news. Indeed, President Trump has issued an Executive Order authorizing the Secretary of Health and...more

Goodwin

Federal Circuit Denies Hospira’s Petition to Rehear Safe Harbor Ruling in Epoetin Biosimilar Dispute

Goodwin on

The Federal Circuit has declined to reconsider its December 2019 affirmance of the district court ruling in the Amgen v. Hospira (epoetin alfa) dispute.  As we have previously reported, that ruling upheld a jury verdict...more

Goodwin

Hospira Asks Federal Circuit to Take Fresh Look at Safe Harbor Ruling in Epoetin Biosimilar Dispute

Goodwin on

Last month, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed a Delaware district court’s judgment of infringement against Hospira and $70 million damages award to Amgen in the parties’ BPCIA litigation regarding Hospira’s...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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - December 2019 #3

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Blackbird Tech LLC v. Health in Motion LLC, Appeal No. 2018-2393 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2019) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a fee award against prevailing...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Federal Circuit affirms Safe Harbor ruling and $70 million award in Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.

On December 16, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion that fully upheld the District of Delaware’s denial of Hospira, Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), or alternative motion...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

District Court Case Highlights Nuances Associated with Determining If a Generic or Biosimilar Applicant Is Entitled to Protection...

A recent case at the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware demonstrates how nuanced safe harbor protection under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) "non-infringement" can be for a pharmaceutical company developing a biosimilar...more

Fish & Richardson

Should Stockpiling Be Protected By The Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor?

Fish & Richardson on

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

Kilpatrick

Safe Harbor Provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) – Implications of Intent and Continued Use

Kilpatrick on

The safe harbor defense has been of issue in two recent cases in which the bounds of the protection has been analyzed. Section 271(e)(1) carves out an exception to patent infringement liability when otherwise-infringing...more

42 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