- 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.
Vol. 6, No. 3
Fall 2016
Relevant court decisions highlighted in this issue:
- The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc.
On-sale bar is not triggered by production of drug by third party, even if that drug is stockpiled and later sold. - Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc.
Issue and claim preclusion do not apply when (i) the court issues a new claim construction; and (ii) the defendant has engaged in a section viii carve out in its proposed ANDA label. - Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharms., Inc.
Reanalyzing clinical data to identify patentable information and filing patent applications as well as making and selling a drug with a revised label reflecting the information derived from that clinical study falls into the § 271(e)(1) safe harbor provision and does not infringe as a matter of law.
Relevant ANDA updates highlighted in this issue:
- ANDA Approvals
- ANDA Litigation Settlements
- Generic Launches
- New ANDA Cases
Related Professionals
Miles A. Finn, Ph.D.
Counsel
Issue and claim preclusion do not apply when (i) the court issues a new claim construction; and (ii) the defendant has engaged in a section viii carve out in its proposed ANDA label.
Subsequent patent teaching a formulation of specific dosage amounts was not invalid for general or double-patenting obviousness when the specific dosages produced unexpected results contrary to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time of patenting.
The FDA’s interpretation of the statutory language determining when an NDA is “initially submitted” is due deference, is reasonable, is consistent, and is not arbitrary or capricious.
Reanalyzing clinical data to identify patentable information and filing patent applications as well as making and selling a drug with a revised label reflecting the information derived from that clinical study falls into the § 271(e)(1) safe harbor provision and does not infringe as a matter of law.
Two of plaintiff’s patents relating to the formulation and application of axillary transdermal testosterone were invalid while a third patent was valid and infringed by one of the joint defendants.
FDA’s prior practice of refusing to grant five-year exclusivity to fixed-combination drug products containing a novel active drug substance was arbitrary and capricious.
A label that states that patients may use a dosing schedule that differs from the label’s proposed schedule does not create a defense to induced infringement.
Relying on the Federal Circuit’s likelihood-of-success standard for awarding preliminary injunctions, the district court preliminary enjoined defendants from infringing the patent-in-suit.
GSK adequately pled a claim of induced infringement alleging facts concerning ways in which Teva actively promoted its generic product and the content of Teva’s skinny label.
All of the proposed terms for construction are indefinite.
A patent is obvious in view of the knowledge of one of skill in the art to disclose the gaps not inherently disclosed in the primary reference.
A patent-term extension of a continuation does not violate 35 U.S.C. § 156 because a patentee can extend the term for one chosen patent.
Based on Defendants’ proposed ANDA labels, the court found Defendants liable for induced infringement; the claims were not invalid as obvious.
On-sale bar is not triggered by production of drug by third party, even if that drug is stockpiled and later sold.
Given the recent Supreme Court decisions concerning jurisdiction, general jurisdiction over branded drug company does not exist because branded company defends itself in prior litigation, and specific jurisdiction is not present when the branded drug company has limited contacts with the forum.
An exceptional case finding is not supported when there was a genuine issue regarding how to test to determine if a claim element is present.
After stipulating to infringement, the court addressed and rejected various arguments that the asserted claims were invalid.
The court rejected defendant’s obviousness defense, finding fault with its lead-compound analysis and probative evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness; the court also found the asserted claims infringed directly and by inducement, but found no contributory infringement.
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.