- 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. 5, No. 2
Summer 2015
Relevant court decisions highlighted in this issue:
- Teva Pharms USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
Patent claim is indefinite when a patentee gives conflicting definitions of the term during prosecution. - Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc.
Claim construction relying solely upon the claims, specification, and file history is subject to de novo review despite the district court’s hearing expert testimony. - Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Watson Labs., Inc.
Appeals court affirms finding of non-obviousness as to one defendant given lack of proof evidencing motivation to combine relevant prior art references; and affirms finding of non-infringement as to second defendant because certain inactive ingredient is not a “antioxidant” as the claim requires. - Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharms., Inc.
Activities related to the filing of an sNDA are exempt from infringement under 271(e)(1) safe harbor.
Relevant ANDA updates highlighted in this issue:
- ANDA Approvals
- ANDA Litigation Settlements
- Generic Launches
- New ANDA Cases
Related Professionals
Denying Otsuka’s request for an injunction because the defendant drug manufacturer’s products did not contain the pharmaceutical combination required by the claims of Otsuka’s patent.
The FDA may approve an ANDA, which carves out an indication protected by orphan drug exclusivity as long as the ANDA with that carved out label remained safe and effective for the remaining non-protected conditions of use.
Claims directed to incorporating gelling agents to combat potential drug abuse found infringed but invalid as obvious.
Claim construction relying solely upon the claims, specification, and file history is subject to de novo review despite the district court’s hearing expert testimony.
FDA’s approval of an ANDA carving out a specific indication was not overturned, even if the generic drug was in practice prescribed for the carved-out indication.
Vague product-labelling language, coupled with speculation about a physician’s medical practice, is not enough to show a likelihood of success in proving induced infringement.
Patent claim is indefinite when a patentee gives conflicting definitions of the term during prosecution.
FDA’s decision to delay final approval of a related application during the three year exclusivity period was not arbitrary or capricious.
FDA’s decision not to award five-year exclusivity was set aside because of inconsistencies in construing the term “active ingredient.
50 percent reasonable royalty was proper; "entire market value" rule was inapplicable in this case; and no damages may be awarded on post-expiration sales during period of pediatric exclusivity.
To prove obviousness, only a reasonable expectation of success, not a guarantee, is needed.
Words of degree—i.e., “high,” “low,” “satisfactory” and “reliable”—found within a disputed claim term rendered that term invalid as indefinite.
Finding of infringement resulted from the finding that the proper approach to analyzing clinical trial safety data was to use a means statistical analysis, not a percentage analysis.
Activities related to the filing of an sNDA are exempt from infringement under 271(e)(1) safe harbor.
Claim for induced infringement dismissed when generic label contains proper carve-out language, and claim for contributory infringement remains when accused products—although used in non-infringing ways—are for the most part used in accordance with the patented method.
Specification providing a list of alternative compounds may form the basis for the disclosure-dedication rule to preclude a claim of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
Failure to demonstrate that one of skill would have a reasonable expectation of success for a proposed combination dooms an obviousness challenge.
Appeals court affirms finding of non-obviousness as to one defendant given lack of proof evidencing motivation to combine relevant prior art references; and affirms finding of non-infringement as to second defendant because certain inactive ingredient is not a “antioxidant” as the claim requires.
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.