- 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. 8, No. 3
Fall 2018
Relevant court decisions highlighted in this issue:
- Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc.
Federal Circuit affirms judgment of invalidity on the basis of obviousness after reviewing the relevant prior art and discounting some objective indicia of non-obviousness on the basis of the existence of a blocking patent. - Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC
Having found no suggestion that the claimed limitations in the prior art should be selected and combined, and that defendant did not meet its burden of proof in doing so, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s obviousness finding. - Supernus Pharms., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s findings of infringement and validity, and that its limited reliance on a prior case concerning the same asserted patents but a different defendant was proper.
Relevant ANDA updates highlighted in this issue:
- ANDA Approvals
- ANDA Litigation Settlements
- Generic Launches
- New ANDA Cases
Related Professionals
Christopher A. Pinahs
Partner
The court granted summary judgment of non-infringement where the accused formulation included an excipient the solubilizing function of which was not in line with the claimed abuse-deterrent function, and denied summary judgment on the issues of issue preclusion and the doctrine of equivalents, where a more extensive factual predicate was necessary.
Federal Circuit affirms judgment of invalidity on the basis of obviousness after reviewing the relevant prior art and discounting some objective indicia of non-obviousness on the basis of the existence of a blocking patent.
Having found no suggestion that the claimed limitations in the prior art should be selected and combined, and that defendant did not meet its burden of proof in doing so, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s obviousness finding.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s findings of infringement and validity, and that its limited reliance on a prior case concerning the same asserted patents but a different defendant was proper.
Under the doctrine of equivalents, the accused product was found to infringe one set of patents’s “delayed release” claim element, and also infringe another set of patents’ limitation requiring that the drug not reduce skin microflora.
Although infringed, the asserted claims for methods of treating pain in patients with hepatic impairment were held invalid as obvious and lacking an adequate written description.
Given the asserted Markush claim limitations, the court ruled that those defendants whose ANDAs included unrecited or unlisted excipients did not infringe the patent-in-suit.
Dismissing defendants’ arguments, including a lead-compound analysis, the court found that the asserted claim was not invalid as obvious.
Having found that the district court did not commit reversible error in finding that the asserted claims were not obvious, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.
Finding that all four factors weigh in plaintiff’s favor, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
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.