- 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. 9, No. 2
Summer 2019
The Summer 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:
- UCB, Inc. v. Watson Labs. Inc.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision that one of the patents-in-suit was valid and infringed under the doctrine of equivalents and that the other patent-in-suit was invalid on the basis of anticipation. - Nuvo Pharms. (Ir.) Designated Activity Co. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. Inc.
Judgment of validity was reversed because the patent specification did not demonstrate that the inventor possessed more than a mere wish or hope of his claimed invention. - BTG Int’l Ltd. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB and district court’s finding of obviousness because the prior art showed, both together and individually, that abiraterone and prednisone were considered promising prostate cancer treatments.
Relevant ANDA Updates highlighted in this issue:
- ANDA Approvals
- ANDA Litigation Settlements
- Generic Launches
- New ANDA Cases
Related Professionals
Christopher A. Pinahs
Partner
After plaintiff was able to persuade the court that it was likely to succeed on the merits, suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored the relief sought, the court preliminarily enjoined defendants from launching at risk their generic products.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision that one of the patents-in-suit was valid and infringed under the doctrine of equivalents and that the other patent-in-suit was invalid on the basis of anticipation.
Relying primarily on the intrinsic record, the the court construed “about” to mean “approximately” and found that a single ingredient could not satisfy two claimed functional limitations.
Motion to dismiss granted when, under the patent venue statute, defendant did not reside in the venue and did not have a regular and established place of business in the venue.
Judgment of validity was reversed because the patent specification did not demonstrate that the inventor possessed more than a mere wish or hope of his claimed invention.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB and district court’s finding of obviousness because the prior art showed, both together and individually, that abiraterone and prednisone were considered promising prostate cancer treatments.
Finding that a POSA would not have had a reasonable expectation of success at coming up with the claimed invention given the disclosure of the prior art, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of non-obviousness.
The disclosure-dedication doctrine barred Plaintiff from advancing its infringement claim based on the doctrine of equivalents.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s obviousness finding when defendant was unable to establish a motivation to combine the prior art references and could not establish a POSA’s reasonable expectation of success.
Relying solely on its finding that defendant could not show a likelihood of success on the merits, the court denied defendant’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining plaintiff from its at-risk launch, even when all other factors favored injunctive relief.
Although the court had personal jurisdiction over defendant, venue was improper in the Eastern District of Texas.
Although the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action at the time the complaint was filed.
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.