GENERICally Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Litigation Bulletin

First Quarter

This quarterly 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:

  • Endo Ventures Unlimited Co. v. Nexus Pharms. Inc.
    ephedrine sulfate
    Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction granted when Defendant’s principal place of business and state of incorporation were not in the forum state and its intentions to open and use a facility in the forum state could not form a basis for the Court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
  • Mallinckrodt plc v. Airgas Therapeutics LLC
    INOmax® (nitric oxide)
    The court found that plaintiffs had not met their burden of pleading that French defendant purposefully directed its activities at the United States, and as a result, the court did not have personal jurisdiction.
  • UCB, Inc. v. Mylan Techs. Inc.
    Neupro® (rotigotine)
    Because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the scope of defendant’s amended ANDA, defendant’s summary judgment motion seeking a finding that plaintiff breached its covenant not to sue was denied.
  • Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
    Esbriet® (pirfenidone)
    As none of the private interest factors set forth in Jumara v. State Farm strongly favored transfer, and most were either neutral or disfavored transfer, the balance of the private interest factors did not weigh in favor of granting defendants’ motion to transfer.
  • Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Tolmar, Inc.
    Invega Sustenna® (paliperidone extended-release suspension)
    Defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the patent-in-suit was obvious, lacked adequate written description, and was not enabled.
  • Endo Par Innovation Co. v. BPI Labs, LLC
    Adrenalin® (epinephrine)
    Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for a more definite statement was denied when plaintiff’s complaint adequately pled the requisite allegations under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2).
  • Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.
    Entresto® (sacubitril/valsartan)
    Because Mylan’s ANDA product was substantially pure and comprised a hemipentahydrate, it was found to infringe the patents-in-suit.
  • Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH, C.A.
    Xarelto® (rivaroxaban)
    The court retained subject matter jurisdiction in ANDA holder’s declaratory-judgment action even when (i) patentee did not sue within 45 days after receipt of paragraph IV letter and (ii) patentee gave ANDA holder a covenant not to sue.

Relevant ANDA Updates highlighted in this issue:

The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.

Disclaimer

Oren D. Langer

Partner

Managing Partner, New York Office

Christine May

Paralegal

Related Publications

Second Quarter
GENERICally Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Litigation Bulletin
Oren Langer, Christopher Pinahs, Emily Tremblay, and Christine May
June 25, 2024
Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharms. USA Inc.
GENERICally Speaking Hatch Waxman Bulletin
June 10, 2024
Teva Branded Pharm. Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharms. of NY, LLC
GENERICally Speaking Hatch Waxman Bulletin
April 30, 2024
Pharmacyclics LLC v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC
GENERICally Speaking Hatch Waxman Bulletin
April 11, 2024
Salix Pharms., Ltd. v. Norwich Pharms. Inc.
GENERICally Speaking Hatch Waxman Bulletin
Back to Top