- 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 5, 2024Jake Holdreith Named to Twin Cities Business Top 100
-
December 4, 2024Robins Kaplan Obtains $10.5 Million Post-Verdict in Landmark Aerosol Dust Remover Abuse Case
-
December 2, 2024Robins Kaplan LLP Announces 2025 Partners
-
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.
GENERICally Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Litigation Bulletin
Fourth Quarter
The fourth quarter 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:
- H. Lundbeck A/S v. Lupin Ltd.
Trintellix® (vortioxetine)
Defendants’ proposed carved-out label was the basis for the court’s non-infringement opinion, which was affirmed on appeal. - Actelion Pharms. Ltd. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.
Veletri® (epoprostenol)
Because the District Court should have addressed the extrinsic evidence to understand how a skilled artisan would understand the claim language, the Federal Circuit vacated the lower court’s construction of “a pH of 13 or higher” and its judgment of infringement. - Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
Korlym® (mifepristone)
Plaintiff did not meet its burden to prove induced infringement because there was no direct infringement and no intent to induce on the part of the Defendant. - Acadia Pharms. Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.
Nuplazid® (pimavanserin tartrate)
The patent-in-suit was not invalid for obviousness-type double patenting based on the court’s interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 121. - Eisai R&D Mgmt. Co., Ltd. v. Dr Reddy’s Labs., Inc.
Halaven® (eribulin mesylate)
The court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff offered defendant a covenant not to sue thereby divesting the court of subject matter jurisdiction. - Norwich Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra
Xifaxan® (rifaximin)
Because the district court’s final judgment explicitly prohibited final approval until a date certain, the FDA did not err in granting tentative—and not final—approval to an amended ANDA that included a skinny label. - Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. v. Padagis Israel Pharms. Ltd.
Arazlo® (tazarotene)
The court granted plaintiff’s Rule 12(c) motion concerning Defendant’s inequitable conduct counterclaim because Defendant raised a new argument unsupported by the factual allegations in its Amended Answer and did not plead facts that would make plausible the inference that, but for the withholding certain material prior art, Plaintiff would not have overcome the rejection for obviousness and obtained allowance.
Relevant ANDA Updates highlighted in this issue:
Related Professionals
Korlym® (mifepristone)
Nuplazid® (pimavanserin tartrate)
Trintellix® (vortioxetine)
Halaven® (eribulin mesylate)
Veletri® (epoprostenol)
Xifaxan® (rifaximin)
Arazlo® (tazarotene)
New Drug Applications and 505(b)(2) Applications
Reported settlements in federal district court cases
Abbreviated New Drug Applications and 505(b)(2) Applications
Federal district court cases that are filed pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act
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.