- Affirmative Recovery
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- 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
- Ediscovery
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Litigation Support Services
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
-
September 18, 2020Teresa Fariss Mcclain Recognized as Woman worth Watching by Profiles in Diversity Journal
-
September 17, 2020Robins Kaplan LLP Files New Lawsuit Against Delbarton School and the Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey on behalf of Survivors of Child Sex Abuse
-
September 17, 2020Roman Silberfeld Named to Annual List of Top 100 Attorneys in California
-
September 22, 2020Landslide: IP Legal Pitfalls of Machine Learning Systems
-
September 23, 202010th Annual Disability Justice Seminar
-
September 24, 2020Human Rights Campaign National Virtual Event: Unite for Equality
-
August 24, 2020Hot off the Presses: California Further Regulates Out-of-State Adjusters in the Wake of Record-Breaking Catastrophic Losses
-
August 26, 2020INSIGHT: Avoiding Trade Secret Claims After Seeing a Competitor’s Crown Jewels
-
Fall 2020Conservation Easement Deductions: How Recent Tax Law Developments Have Created A New Area of Legal Malpractice Litigation
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
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.
GENERICally Speaking Summer 2020
Summer 2020
The Summer 2020 issue of GENERICally Speaking provides you and your company with some of the knowledge beneficial to remaining attentive to the complexity of ANDA patent litigation.
A few of the relevant court decisions highlighted in this issue:
- Eagle Pharms. Inc. v. Slayback Pharma LLC
- Biogen Int’l Gmbh v. Banner Life Sciences LLC
- Valeant Pharms. Int’l, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.
Relevant ANDA Updates highlighted in this issue:
505(b)(2) Applications and New Drug Applications
Reported settlements in federal district court cases
Drug launches resulting from Abbreviated New Drug Applications and 505(b)(2) Applications
Federal district court cases that are filed pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act
Converting from a PIV certification to a PIII certification does not rid the district court of subject matter jurisdiction, but it does warrant granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Because a skilled artisan would have recognized the limitations of one prior-art reference and would have been motivated to select the teachings of another reference to overcome them, the patents-in-suit were obvious.
Because the proposed label of the ANDA product did not contemplate the claimed timeframe in the asserted patent for administering the drug, the court granted defendant’s motion for judgment of non-infringement on the pleadings.
Amending claims and adding inventor to claim new aspect of invention, without amending specification, results in judgment of invalidity for lack of written description.
Judgment of non-infringement on the pleadings affirmed when disclosure-dedication doctrine barred patent owner’s claims for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
Because a POSA would not have selected the prior-art compound as a “lead compound,” and there was evidence that the invention met an unmet need and overcame industry skepticism, defendant failed to prove that the patents-in-suit were obvious.
The court found that defendants had not met their clear-and-convincing burden of proving that formulation and method-of-treatments patents-in-suit were obvious.
Because defendant’s NDA product does not include any salt or ester of the active ingredient in Plaintiff’s reference drug, patent term extension did not apply and judgment of non-infringement was affirmed.
The court granted defendant’s motion to enforce its settlement agreement, finding that the agreement was not anticompetitive and in violation of antitrust law.
Because the prior art taught overlapping pH ranges and structurally similar compounds as those claimed in the patent-in-suit, the Federal Circuit reversed summary judgment of non-obviousness.
Subject-matter jurisdiction under the Hatch-Waxman Act does not require (i) a Paragraph IV certification by the ANDA holder; or (ii) the patents-in-suit to be listed in the Orange Book.
Subscribe to our quarterly GENERICally Speaking Update.
Subscribe Now
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.