- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Childhood Sexual Abuse Litigation
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Ediscovery
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Restructuring and Business Bankruptcy
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
- Litigation Support Services
-
December 4, 2019State of Minnesota Sues JUUL
-
November 26, 2019Minnesota Lawyer Honors Two Robins Kaplan Attorneys as 2019 Attorneys of the Year
-
November 21, 2019Firm, Attorney Stacey Slaughter Recognized by National Law Journal
-
December 10, 2019Youth Frontiers Ethical Leadership Luncheon
-
December 11, 2019Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid Associates’ Campaign Kickoff
-
December 11, 2019Minnesota ICON Honors Award Ceremony
-
November 2019CLASS ACTION: Experts weigh in on significant class action developments
-
November 15, 20192019 Case Developments: Are Massachusetts Insurers Required To Be Perfect In An Imperfect World?
-
November 15, 2019Artificial Intelligence v. General Data Protection Regulation: Complex Risks in Changing Times
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.
Vol. 9, No. 3
Fall 2019
The Fall 2019 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:
- Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc.
- INO Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution Inc.
- Nalpropion Pharms., Inc. v. Actavis Labs FL, Inc.
- Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Inc.
Relevant ANDA Updates highlighted in this issue:
- ANDA Approvals
- ANDA Litigation Settlements
- Generic Launches
- New ANDA Cases
Related Professionals
Oren D. Langer
Partner
Jeffrey Alan Hovden
Partner
Christopher A. Pinahs
Associate
Kelsey J. McElveen
Associate
Andrew J. Kabat
Associate
“Wherein” clauses in a method of treatment claim are claim limitations that should be given weight, resulting in the affirmance of a preliminary injunction.
But for a clerical error to be addressed on remand, the Federal Circuit affirms findings of ineligible subject matter and non-infringement.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that one of the patents was adequately described, but reversed the district court’s finding of non-obviousness.
Plaintiff’s disclaimer of claims found invalid by the PTAB mooted any controversy before the appellate court associated with that patent, and a second patent-in-suit was not invalid because the district court did not err in rejecting the defendants’ obviousness challenge.
While the district court’s finding of literal infringement was reversed, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalent because the narrowing amendment was tangential to the recited salt in the accused product.
Where the defendants sought out a claim construction in the district court, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of non-infringement, and where the defendant did not seek a clarifying claim construction, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of infringement.
The court denied defendant’s motion to enforce its settlement agreement with plaintiff after the at-risk launch and subsequent settlement of another defendant.
The asserted claims of 1% ivermectin formulation are invalid on the basis of anticipation in light of a prior art reference that teaches application of 1-5% ivermectin formulation for treatment of the same indication.
Because plaintiffs failed to show specifically how defendants committed any act of infringement in New Jersey—particularly by filing an ANDA in West Virginia with the FDA in Maryland—or that any future, intended acts were a part of the infringement analysis, venue was improper in the District of New Jersey.
The court denies defendant’s motion for judgment of non-infringement in response to ANDA holder modification of its ANDA specification after trial.
Relying on plaintiffs’ testing of defendant’s ANDA product, and finding that the prior art taught away from the claimed invention, the court held the asserted claims valid and infringed.
The court granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss defendant’s antitrust and patent misuse counterclaims and related affirmative defenses.
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.