- 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 23, 2024David Martinez Recognized Among Top 100 Lawyers in Los Angeles by LA Business Journal
-
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 30, 2024Navigating Generational Dynamics
-
May 2-3, 2024ACI Advanced Forum on Managed Care Disputes and Litigation
-
May 6, 2024Litigating with the Legends
-
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.
GENERICally Speaking Spring 2020
Spring 2020
The Spring 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:
- Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC
- Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms. Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.
- Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
Relevant ANDA Updates highlighted in this issue:
- ANDA Approvals
- ANDA Litigation Settlements
- Generic Launches
- New ANDA Cases
Defendant did not infringe the patent-in-suit under the doctrine of equivalents, and proffered clear and convincing evidence that the patent-in-suit was invalid as obvious because it named an improper inventor, and unenforceable due to the inequitable conduct of defendant’s chief scientific officer.
Although defendants were found to induce infringement of the asserted method claims in the patents-in-suit, those claims were invalid as obvious.
The Federal Circuit affirmed an infringement finding on one set of patents-in-suit and reversed an infringement finding on another.
Because a method of treating a specific disease for specific patients using a specific compound at specific doses to achieve a specific outcome qualifies as patentable subject matter, the district court’s judgment finding otherwise was reversed.
Once the first-filer ANDA applicant launched its product, it could no longer forfeit its 180-day exclusivity, thereby rendering the subsequent ANDA filer Plaintiff’s declaratory-judgment claim moot.
Because a skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the prior art to come up with the claimed invention, neither of defendants’ affirmative defenses could overcome their burden to prove invalidity.
The appellate court reversed and remanded the district court’s finding that the asserted claims are invalid as anticipated.
Because Takeda could not show a likelihood of success on the merits or that it would suffer irreparable harm, the court denied its motion for a preliminary injunction.
The appellate court found no clear error in the lower court’s factual findings related to obviousness, and affirmed.
Because plaintiff’s patent rights were limited to the “active ingredient” in its FDA-approved product at the time of administration, before the product is consumed by a human patient, PTE did not apply and the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Following a bench trial finding that two defendants did not infringe and one defendant infringed the patent-in-suit, the Federal Circuit modified the judgment so that one defendant did not infringe and two defendants infringed the patent-in-suit.
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.