- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- 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
-
July 16, 2024David Martinez Named To 2024 Leaders of Influence: Litigators & Trial Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal
-
July 16, 2024Robins Kaplan Ranked Among Best Law Firms for Training and Professional Development
-
July 15, 2024IAM Patent 1000 Recommends Robins Kaplan, Nine Partners for Patent Litigation
-
July 18, 2024Trial Skills: Examination of Expert Witnesses - Direct and Cross
-
October 21, 2024How Much Did We Invest in AI?
-
Second QuarterGENERICally Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Litigation Bulletin
-
July 12, 2024Litigation Perspective: Strategies for Licensing Software that Leverages Artificial Intelligence
-
June/July 2024A Dive Into Intellectual Property Liability For E-Commerce Platforms
-
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.
GENERICally Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Litigation Bulletin
Second Quarter
This quarterly issue of the GENERICally Speaking campaign provides you and your company with some of the knowledge beneficial to remaining attentive to the complexity of ANDA patent litigation.
In this issue:
- Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharms. USA Inc.
Vascepa® (icosapent ethyl)
Because plaintiff plausibly pled that, despite its section viii carve-out, defendant had induced infringement of the asserted patents, defendant is not entitled to dismissal at the Rule 12 motion stage. - Salix Pharms., Ltd. v. Norwich Pharms. Inc.
Xifaxan® (rifaximin)
The Federal Circuit affirmed the obviousness of two sets of patents, but also affirmed the denial of generic manufacturer’s Rule 60 motion seeking to carve out an infringing indication in its ANDA after the district court entered judgment of infringement and validity as to patents covering that indication. - Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
Invega Sustenna® (paliperidone palmitate)
Because the district court applied a more rigid obviousness analysis that that prescribed by KSR, and because claim scope was to “a” patient and not a population of patients, finding of invalidity on the basis of obviousness was vacated and remanded. - Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Tolmar, Inc.
Invega Sustenna® (paliperidone palmitate)
The Federal Circuit vacating a finding of non-obviousness of an identical patent by another district court did not lead to reconsideration of this court’s finding of non-obviousness because this court applied the reasoning that the Federal Circuit laid out in its opinion while it considered the issue of obviousness at trial. - Teva Branded Pharm. Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharms. of NY, LLC
ProAir® HFA (albuterol sulfate)
Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking patent delisting from FDA’s Orange Book was granted when the patents did not claim the drug for which the applicant submitted the application or a drug product. - Pharmacyclics LLC v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC
Imbruvica® (ibrutinib)
Because both parties were vexatious in their litigation conduct, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ and experts’ fees.
Relevant ANDA Updates highlighted in this issue:
The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.
Related Professionals
Related Publications
Related News
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.