- 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
- 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 Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLPTM
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
October 26, 2021Robins Kaplan Named “Recommended Firm” For Hatch-Waxman Litigation in 2021
-
October 21, 2021Oren Langer Named New York Managing Partner
-
October 19, 2021Three Robins Kaplan Partners Selected to Receive 2021 Minnesota Icon Award
-
October 28, 2021From Riches to Rags, a Story of a Damaged Nonprofit
-
October 29, 2021Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference
-
October 30, 2021Children’s Theatre Company 2021 Curtain Call Ball
-
October 25, 2021Summary of the Trial Decision in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
-
Fall 2021Are All Fiduciaries Created Equal?
-
Fall 2021Context Matters: Fiduciaries and the Rule Against Self-Dealing
-
October 20, 2021Financial Daily Dose 10.20.2021 | Top Story: Credit Suisse Fined $475M Over Mozambique Bribery Scandal
-
October 20, 2021The Robins Kaplan Privacy Pulse | Ransomware Attack Targets Sinclair Broadcast Group
-
October 19, 2021Financial Daily Dose 10.19.2021 | Top Story: SEC Issues Long-Awaited Report on Meme Stock Craze
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. 3, No. 4
Winter 2013
The Winter 2013 issue of the GENERICally Speaking email campaign provides you and your company with some of the knowledge beneficial to remaining attentive to the complexity of ANDA patent litigation.
Relevant court decisions highlighted in this issue:
- AstraZeneca AB v. Hanmi USA, Inc., Fed. Cir.
- Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., Fed. Cir.
- Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc., Fed. Cir.
Read more about these and other important court decisions, New ANDA Cases, ANDA Litigation Settlements, ANDA Approvals, and Generic Launches.
Related Professionals
In the context of a hypothetical negotiation, the court found that AstraZeneca would be entitled to 50% of Apotex’s profits resulting from its infringing at-risk launch of generic omeprazole from November 2003 until October 2007.
Affirming construction of the term “alkaline salt” and judgment of non-infringement based on that construction.
The district court’s non-infringement holding was remanded in view of a different claim construction; its holding that the asserted claims were invalid as obvious was affirmed.
Finding that defendants’ allegations meet the “but-for materiality” and “intent to deceive” prerequisites of an inequitable conduct claim, the court granted the instant motion to amend.
Plaintiffs cannot use the doctrine of equivalents to reach beyond what is claimed and described in the patents-in-suit, therefore summary judgment of non-infringement was appropriate.
Finding the asserted patents-in-suit infringed and not invalid.
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Seagate did not create any pleading requirement above and beyond that established under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, nor did it create a per se rule that a plaintiff could never succeed on a willful infringement claim if it was denied a preliminary injunction.
After the Federal Circuit’s finding of infringement and validity, a subsequent Federal Circuit affirmance of the PTO’s rejection of the same claims trumps the Federal Circuit’s first ruling.
Because the prior art combination disclosed each and every element of the asserted patents, and the district court’s findings concerning secondary considerations were erroneous, the district court’s finding of non-obviousness was reversed on appeal.
Patents-in-suit claiming compositions, methods of preparation, and methods of treatment concerning azalide antibiotics were not obvious.
Motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate if proposed ANDA product labeling does not include an indication that is covered by the patented method.
On summary judgment, asserted claims held invalid for lack of written description; summary judgment of non-infringement granted.
Section 305 requires that the patent applicant subjectively believes that he or she is submitting prior art to the USPTO and that such belief is objectively reasonable.
When a claim element in a product-by-process patent requires “efficient mixing” and the ANDA product is formulated by “inefficient mixing,” the ANDA product cannot infringe as a matter of law. Filing of an ANDA, in the absence of any other activities on the part of the Defendant, could not support a finding of willful infringement.
ANDA product did not infringe asserted claims because it used abacavir in a salt form, not abacavir in its free base or pure form; invention is not obvious because there was very little about anti-HIV therapy that could be described as predictable at the time of the invention.
Reference Listed Drug, NDA Holder, Generic Drug Name, ANDA Applicant(s), Indication and Launch Date
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.