- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
December 2, 2024Robins Kaplan LLP Announces 2025 Partners
-
November 20, 2024Eighth Circuit Affirms U.S. Merchants Victory in Trade Dress Infringement Case
-
November 15, 2024Lauren Coppola Named an Emerging Leader by Profiles in Diversity Journal
-
December 11, 20242024 Year in Review: eDiscovery and Artificial Intelligence
-
December 12, 2024Strategies for Licensing AI: A Litigation Perspective
-
December 2024A Landmark Victory for Disabled Homeless Veterans: Q&A with the Trial Team
-
November 8, 2024Trademark tensions on the track: Court upholds First Amendment protections in Haas v. Steiner
-
November 8, 2024Destination Skiing And The DOJ's Mountain Merger Challenge
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
Read our attorneys' take on the latest news and trends in the legal and business industries.
GENERICally Speaking Hatch Waxman Bulletin
The Hatch-Waxman Litigation practice group at Robins Kaplan LLP is pleased to offer the latest edition of their quarterly publication regarding ANDA patent litigation issues and the generics business.
Vol. 5, No. 3
Fall 2015
The Fall 2015 issue of the GENERICally Speaking email campaign provides you and your company with some of the knowledge beneficial to remaining attentive to the complexity of ANDA patent litigation.
Relevant court decisions highlighted in this issue:
- Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms. LLC
- Allergan, Inc., v. Sandoz Inc.
- The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc.
Read more about these and other important court decisions, New ANDA Cases, ANDA Litigation Settlements, ANDA Approvals, and Generic Launches.
Related Professionals
Personal jurisdiction over defendants existed in Indiana when PIV Certification notice letter was sent to a corporation incorporated in that state.
Trial court did not err when it found that there was no motivation to pursue modified concentration of existing drug and no reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and asserted claims met the Section 112 requirements for enablement and adequate written description.
Patentee disavowed any meaning to claim term at issue other than that which was described in the specification, and in view of that construction, cross motions for summary judgment were denied.
Indirect infringement is present when the patient and prescribing information describe all claimed steps.
The fact that the “bioavailability of oxymorphone is increased in people with impaired kidney function” is a natural law that is not subject to patent protection.
Controlled-release oxymorphone patents held infringed and valid while abuse-proof oxymorphone patent held infringed but invalid as obvious.
The asserted claims were invalid as obvious when two of three elements were plainly in the prior art while the third element was an inherent result of the combination of the first two elements.
Asserted claim was invalid and infringed after the court considered and rejected arguments related to on-sale bar, anticipation, obviousness, and lack of written description.
Motion to transfer denied when related litigation concerning the same patent was not co-pending and involved different accused products.
The asserted claims were invalid as obvious when two of three elements were plainly in the prior art while the third element was an inherent result of the combination of the first two elements.
Determining if compounds are similar for obviousness requires analysis of the entire structure.
Personal jurisdiction does not exist when the only contact in the jurisdiction is plaintiff incorporation in the forum.
On remand, asserted claims were obvious on the basis of inherency and the full scope of the claimed particle size range was not enabled; thus, the patent-in-suit was invalid.
Failure to raise a claim-construction issue precludes a party from arguing claim differentiation.
There is no personal jurisdiction over defendant when PIV Certification notice letter was mailed to one state and defendants were headquartered in another state.
Claims held invalid based on application of on-sale bar when sale of manufacturing services was deemed a commercial offer for sale.
Proposed ANDA formulation infringed the patent-in-suit under the doctrine of equivalents; defendants’ obviousness defense was also rejected.
Lead compound analysis established that the asserted claims were not invalid as obvious.
Affirming finding of validity and infringement of patents-in-suit, but finding a supplier of components reasonably related to the submission of an ANDA falls within the safe harbor provision of 35 USC § 271(1) and is not liable for infringement
Reference Listed Drug, NDA Holder, Generic Drug Name, ANDA Applicant(s), Indication and Launch Date
Any information that you send us in an e-mail message should not be confidential or otherwise privileged information. Sending us an e-mail message will not make you a client of Robins Kaplan LLP. We do not accept representation until we have had an opportunity to evaluate your matter, including but not limited to an ethical evaluation of whether we are in a conflict position to represent you. Accordingly, the information you provide to us in an e-mail should not be information for which you would have an expectation of confidentiality.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.