- 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 23, 2024David Martinez Recognized Among Top 100 Lawyers in Los Angeles by LA Business Journal
-
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 30, 2024Navigating Generational Dynamics
-
May 2-3, 2024ACI Advanced Forum on Managed Care Disputes and Litigation
-
May 6, 2024Litigating with the Legends
-
First QuarterGENERICally Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Litigation Bulletin
-
March 2024e-Commerce: Pitfalls and Protections
-
March 25, 2024Endo Ventures Unlimited Co. v. Nexus Pharms. Inc.
-
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. 8, No. 1
Spring 2018
Relevant court decisions highlighted in this issue:
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC
Affirming judgment of non-infringement, the Federal Circuit found that district did not abuse its discretion in denying request for additional samples and a new trial, did not err in finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that ANDA product was not representative of defendants’ final commercial product, and did not err in its infringement analysis. - The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s finding of non-infringement, but remanded the case to determine if patents are covered by a distribution agreement, which would render them invalid based on the on-sale bar. - Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.
Because the district court erred in construing the claims, its infringement judgment was vacated and remanded for further findings consistent with the new claim construction.
Relevant ANDA updates highlighted in this issue:
- ANDA Approvals
- ANDA Litigation Settlements
- Generic Launches
- New ANDA Cases
Related Professionals
Christopher A. Pinahs
Partner
After a jury found for plaintiff, the court granted defendant’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law because there was neither sufficient nor substantial evidence supported the jury finding of inducement.
Defendants did not infringe the patents-in-suit because plaintiff failed to present statistically significant evidence to show that all of the asserted claims were infringed.
In addition to finding the patents-in-suit infringed, the court sanctioned defendant for reporting for the first time—in the middle of trial—that it performed its FDA testing incorrectly.
Granting summary judgment of no literal infringement, denying summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and of no indirect infringement.
The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, pending limited venue-related discovery.
While the prior art did teach the w/v% range, it did not do so in solution dosage forms, therefore, the patent-in-suit was not obvious.
Affirming judgment of non-infringement, the Federal Circuit found that district did not abuse its discretion in denying request for additional samples and a new trial, did not err in finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that ANDA product was not representative of defendants’ final commercial product, and did not err in its infringement analysis.
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing defendant’s inequitable-conduct counterclaim for failure to identify a specific individual who purportedly intentionally failed to disclose relevant prior art to the Patent Office.
The court granted judgment of invalidity as a matter of law based on lack of enablement, and denied defendant’s motions for judgment as a matter of law based on lack of written description and for reduced damages.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s finding of non-infringement, but remanded the case to determine if patents are covered by a distribution agreement, which would render them invalid based on the on-sale bar.
The court granted summary judgment of non-infringement based on findings of no literal infringement and that prosecution history estoppel barred application of the doctrine of equivalents.
Motion for preliminary injunction denied where defendant had raised a substantial question about the central issue in the case, which Plaintiff had not shown lacked substantial merit.
All but one of the patents-in-suit were invalid as obvious based on the prior art, including an earlier version of the commercial drug label, which provided a POSA with the motivation to develop the claimed invention.
Because the district court erred in construing the claims, its infringement judgment was vacated and remanded for further findings consistent with the new claim construction.
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.