- 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 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 8, 2024Tara Sutton, Emily Tremblay Shortlisted for Euromoney’s Women in Business Law Awards
-
April 24, 2024IP Leadership Executive Summit
-
April 24, 2024IP Odyssey: Navigating the Latest Developments in Intellectual Property Law
-
April 30, 2024Navigating Generational Dynamics
-
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. 7, No. 2
Summer 2017
Relevant court decisions highlighted in this issue:
- Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.
District court improperly applied the “function, way, result” test in granting a preliminary injunction concerning process patents, but properly evaluated obviousness and irreparable harm for a purity patent. - Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharm., Inc.
Affirming previous claim construction in related case, the district court erred in finding that proposed label would not induce physicians to practice the claimed method. - Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
A sale that is conditioned on FDA approval is still a sale for the purposes of the on-sale bar and the AIA’s amendments to the on-sale bar did not change its scope with regards to public disclosure.
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
Motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied where claim construction and expert discovery was necessary to decide the issue of non-infringement.
Affirming previous claim construction in related case, the district court erred in finding that proposed label would not induce physicians to practice the claimed method.
Because the word “excitation” in the claim does not include within its scope “mania,” the patent-in-suit, which is not obvious and meets all the requirements of Section 112, is not infringed.
Because plaintiffs may rely on circumstantial evidence to prove intent related to their inducement claim, the court recommended denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
A sale that is conditioned on FDA approval is still a sale for the purposes of the on-sale bar and the AIA’s amendments to the on-sale bar did not change its scope with regards to public disclosure.
The formulation of Pennsaid 2% was not a result of routine optimization of the formulation of Pennsaid 1.5%, therefore the claims were not obvious.
District court improperly applied the “function, way, result” test in granting a preliminary injunction concerning process patents, but properly evaluated obviousness and irreparable harm for a purity patent.
Allegations of infringement about a would-be formulation and seeking discovery about highly confidential, competitive information concerning that would-be formulation necessitated an exceptional case finding and an award of fees and costs.
Finding of non-infringement is warranted where 18 peaks, each identified by wavenumber, are claimed but only 17 peaks are found in the accused product; asserted method claims are held invalid as obvious when all the claimed limitations are within the prior art and secondary considerations mostly weigh in favor of obviousness.
Transfer was appropriate when there was pending litigation in another district involving the same patent and parties.
Because the “efficient mixing” term was a claim limitation in both patents-in-suit, the district court’s finding of infringement with respect to one of those patents was reversed.
The Federal Circuit’s decision on the issue of infringement precludes a trial on remand as to the doctrine of equivalents.
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.