- 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. 8, No. 2
Summer 2018
Relevant court decisions highlighted in this issue:
- Impax Labs Inc. v. Lannett Holdings Inc., LLC
Having found no teaching away and nexus between secondary considerations of non-obviousness and the asserted claims, the Federal Circuit affirmed the validity of the patents-in-suit. - UCB, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc.
Finding that the district court applied the correct standards, the Federal Circuit majority affirmed the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law that the asserted claims were not anticipated, obvious, or invalid for obviousness-type double patenting. - Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
The Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s judgment that the asserted patents were not invalid and were infringed.
Relevant ANDA updates highlighted in this issue:
- ANDA Approvals
- ANDA Litigation Settlements
- Generic Launches
- New ANDA Cases
Related Professionals
Christopher A. Pinahs
Partner
Having found no teaching away and nexus between secondary considerations of non-obviousness and the asserted claims, the Federal Circuit affirmed the validity of the patents-in-suit.
Plaintiff proved infringement of method-of-treatment claims under the doctrine of equivalents because in solution, the accused product and the claimed invention dissociate into the identical active ion that is responsible for the claimed treatment.
The court granted summary judgment of infringement because the functional compound in a chemotherapy treatment drug disassociated in administration and thus the initial ionic bond was not relevant.
The court rejects defendant’s invalidity attacks, premised on double patenting and prosecution laches arguments.
Finding that the district court applied the correct standards, the Federal Circuit majority affirmed the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law that the asserted claims were not anticipated, obvious, or invalid for obviousness-type double patenting.
The Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s judgment that the asserted patents were not invalid and were infringed.
The court denied dispositive motions for infringement and invalidity, but granted summary judgment that the patents-in-suit claimed patentable subject matter.
Because the prior art did not suggest an injectable pharmaceutical solution that was stable for 24 months, no reasonable fact finder could conclude the asserted claims were obvious.
The district court’s claim construction, which resulted in defendants’ stipulation of infringement, was affirmed in view of the intrinsic evidence.
Finding subject matter jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) and that an infringement claim may arise under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) where the asserted patent issued after the ANDA was filed, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of infringement and adequate written description, and also agreed that upon a finding of patent infringement under § 271(e)(2), the district court must order remedies in accordance with § 271(e)(4).
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.