- 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. 4, No. 2
Summer 2014
The Summer 2014 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:
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir.)
- Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc. (Fed Cir)
- Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. (Fed. Cir.)
Read more about these and other important court decisions, New ANDA Cases, ANDA Litigation Settlements, ANDA Approvals, and Generic Launches.
Related Professionals
Because the district court did not take into account the full scope of the claims of the patent-in-suit, and erred in arriving at the date of conception of the other patent-in-suit, findings of non-obviousness as to both were reversed.
Defendants did not meet their burden of showing that all three patents-in-suit are invalid as obvious, and stipulated to infringement of two of three of those patents.
Following the reversal of the district court’s claim constructions concerning two terms—“clinically significant electrolyte shifts” and “a patient”—summary judgment of infringement was vacated and remanded; findings of patent validity were affirmed.
In order to establish obviousness in cases involving new chemical compounds, the accused infringer usually must identify some reason that would have led a chemist to modify a “lead compound.” In this case, such modification was minor and obvious.
A consent judgment between branded and the generic drug manufacturers in the underlying patent litigation is not entitled to Noerr-Pennington immunity from antitrust claims.
Reference Listed Drug, NDA Holder, Generic Drug Name, ANDA Applicant(s), Indication and Launch Date
An earlier-expiring patent may qualify as an obviousness-type double patenting reference for a later-expiring patent under certain circumstances.
Finding of obviousness affirmed when it would have been obvious to select a once-monthly oral dosing regimen of ibandronate to treat osteoporosis and to set that dose at 150 mg.
FDA’s decision to treat an original and its reissued patent as having a single bundle of rights for purposes of generic exclusivity was reasonable, therefore Mylan’s motion for preliminary injunction was denied.
Asserted claims found infringed based on presence of antioxidant and free radical generators creating an oxidative environment susceptible to degradation, and not obvious because a lack of motivation to combine prior art references.
The asserted claim was obvious because all of its elements were in the prior art.
Plaintiffs motion to dismiss counterclaims relating to two patents for which they have given a covenant not to sue was denied because covenant does not render counterclaims moot; defendant’s cross motion for judgment on the pleadings with regard the same two patents was denied as moot because plaintiffs were afforded leave to amend their claims.
District court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in a case where NDA holder sued 505(b)(2) applicant, which had not yet received FDA approval, and in the absence of a paragraph IV certification, NDA holder’s case may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be based.
Because the patented combination was more effective than the prior art, the Federal Circuit found that substantial evidence supported a jury finding of validity.
A subset of the 18 patents-in-suit and over 400 asserted claims are found to be infringed and valid on summary judgment.
Summary judgment of non-infringement denied because amended ANDA label may still implicitly instruct physician and patients to practice claimed limitation.
Motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on anticipation denied because there were fact questions that must be resolved by a fact-finder.
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.