- 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
-
April 15, 2024Robins Kaplan Named to 2024 BTI Client Service A-Team
-
April 9, 2024Robins Kaplan LLP Files Complaint Against Social Media Giants Meta, Snap, TikTok on Behalf of Spirit Lake Nation, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
-
April 8, 2024Tara Sutton, Emily Tremblay Shortlisted for Euromoney’s Women in Business Law Awards
-
April 24, 2024IP Leadership Executive Summit
-
April 24, 2024IP Odyssey: Navigating the Latest Developments in Intellectual Property Law
-
April 30, 2024Navigating Generational Dynamics
-
March 2024e-Commerce: Pitfalls and Protections
-
March 22, 2024‘In re Cellect’:
-
March 14, 2024How Many Cases Have You Tried to a Verdict?
-
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. 7, No. 4
Winter 2017
Relevant court decisions highlighted in this issue:
- Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz. Inc.
The district court’s validity analysis was affirmed, but its infringement finding was reversed because the district court relied on equivalency when plaintiff alleged only literal infringement. - Genzyme Corp. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd.
Because a POSA would not have had a reasonable expectation of success that a reference disclosing increasing white blood cells also disclosed increased stem-cell mobilization, the asserted claim was not obvious. - Forest Labs., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
When the asserted claim required that the concentration profiles of the extended-release formulation and the immediate-release formulation be measured in human pharmacokinetic studies, and the patent failed to identify a particular comparison study to be performed, its claims were indefinite.
Relevant ANDA updates highlighted in this issue:
- ANDA Approvals
- ANDA Litigation Settlements
- Generic Launches
- New ANDA Cases
Related Professionals
Miles A. Finn, Ph.D.
Counsel
The district court’s validity analysis was affirmed, but its infringement finding was reversed because the district court relied on equivalency when plaintiff alleged only literal infringement.
Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and for sanctions were premature and denied because there existed material disputes of fact between the parties concerning the prosecution history of the ’405 patent.
Because a POSA would not have had a reasonable expectation of success that a reference disclosing increasing white blood cells also disclosed increased stem-cell mobilization, the asserted claim was not obvious.
Eli Lilly’s narrowing amendment to overcome the Examiner’s rejection during prosecution could not serve as a basis for defendant’s motion for summary-judgment of non-infringement.
Due to the experimental nature of anti-cancer therapeutics at the time of invention, defendant did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that one of ordinary skill would be motivated nor have a reasonable expectation of success to select the drug formulation in the patents.
When the asserted claim required that the concentration profiles of the extended-release formulation and the immediate-release formulation be measured in human pharmacokinetic studies, and the patent failed to identify a particular comparison study to be performed, its claims were indefinite.
Upholding the district court’s trial determinations because there was no evidence that the district court failed to consider secondary considerations of nonobviousness and the district court was under no obligation to consider theories not raised at trial.
Jury verdict of non-obviousness upheld; willful-infringement verdict overturned.
Venue for the Teva USA claims was not proper in the Northern District of Texas as Teva USA did not commit any act of infringement in the district nor did it have a regular and established place of business there.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the trial court’s finding of infringement and validity.
Because Mylan’s sample productions were not representative of its ANDA product, its summary-judgment motion was dismissed until Otsuka was able to test a proper sample and thereby adequately respond to the motion.
The district court clearly erred when it failed to consider the relevant prior art before it, relying instead on expert-witness testimony.
Obviousness finding was affirmed because the claimed subject matter was known in the art and the secondary considerations did not overcome the strong obviousness case.
Upholding recommendation for summary judgment because water was not a “gelling agent” in the context of the patent-in-suit.
The “clinical trials” section of defendants’ proposed label evidenced induced infringement of the asserted claims, which were also found to be non-obvious.
Because a person of ordinary skill would not have found it obvious to modify the prior art of record to arrive at the claimed invention, trial court ruling of invalidity was reversed.
Dissolution profile and testing limitations in asserted claims were valid and infringed.
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.