- 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.
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.
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.