- 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
- 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
March 30, 2023Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Robins Kaplan Partner Tara Sutton Give Opening Statements in Minnesota’s Lawsuit Against JUUL
March 28, 2023Robins Kaplan LLP Announces 2023 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) Fellow and Pathfinder
March 22, 2023Benchmark Litigation Names Robins Kaplan 2023 Minnesota Law Firm of the Year
April 3, 2023Conference of Tribal Lending Commissioners
April 11-13, 2023Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
April 19, 2023FBA Women in MDL, Mass and Class Leadership
March 2023Unintended Consequences of Banning Noncompete Agreements
March 26, 2023What I’ll Be Watching for in the Amgen Oral Arguments
March 2023How an Investor Can Lose More Than Just Their Investment
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.
Generically Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Litigation Bulletin
By Oren Langer, Christopher Pinahs, and Bernard Pound
The fourth quarter issue of the GENERICally Speaking campaign provides you and your company with some of the knowledge beneficial to remaining attentive to the complexity of ANDA patent litigation.
In this issue:
- Astellas US LLC v. Hospira, Inc.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a new infringement theory and granting defendant’s motion to strike.
- Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
Judgment of obviousness was affirmed on the basis that varying doses in response to the occurrence of side effects seems like a well-established practice, and judgment of non-infringement is affirmed when the district court did not clearly err in considering and weighing evidence of past physician practice against the instructions of the proposed generic label.
- Arius Two, Inc. v. Alvogen PB Rsch. & Dev. LLC
Federal Circuit affirmed district court’s finding that certain patents-in-suit were not invalid and reversed the district court’s finding that certain patents-in-suit were invalid.
- Pharmacyclics LLC v. Alvogen, Inc.
Federal Circuit affirms trial court’s decision that all patents-in-suit are infringed and not invalid.
- Takeda Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Norwich Pharms., Inc.
Vyvanse® (1-lysine-d-amphetamine dimesylate)
Asserted claims were not proven obvious or lacking enablement.
- Vanda Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
All of the asserted claims, related to methods of treating Non-24-hour sleep-wake disorder, are not infringed and obvious.
- Ferring Pharms. Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC
Firmagon® (degarelix acetate)
After a four-day bench trial, the court made various findings as to the infringement and invalidity of the patents-in-suit.
- Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. v. Padagis Israel Pharms. Ltd.
Duobrii® (halobetasol propionate/tazarotene) and Bryhali® (halobetasol propionate)
The court rejected ANDA filer’s obviousness and indefiniteness defenses in finding asserted patents not invalid.
- Jazz Pharms., Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharms., LLC
Xyrem® (sodium oxybate);
A patent claiming a computer-implemented system to address certain REMS conditions of using a drug was ordered delisted from the Orange Book.
- Novartis Pharms Corp. v. Crystal Pharm. (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
After converting Paragraph IV certifications into a Section viii carve-out statement, thereby relying on a method not claimed by the patents-in-suit, the court no longer had subject matter jurisdiction and dismissal was appropriate.
- Allergan USA, Inc. v. Sun Pharm. Indus. Ltd.
The court granted patentee’s Rule 12(c) motion dismissing ANDA filer’s unclean hands defense when it found that there was no misuse of ANDA filer’s confidential information used during ongoing patent prosecution.
- AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.
Patents-in-suit are invalid for lack of adequate written description and non-enablement when the claims cover tens of thousands or millions of combinations of API and excipients, while the specification only teaches a limited subset of those embodiments.
- Horizon Medicines LLC v. Apotex Inc.,
Pennsaid® 2% (diclofenac sodium)
Because a patentee can grant a license to a future continuation patent that does not ultimately issue to the patentee, and instead issues to a third party, the license was valid and defendant was found not to infringe the patents-in-suit.
- Tolmar Therapeutics, Inc. v. Foresee Pharms. Co., Ltd.
Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied because the court could not analyze the issue of infringement without claim construction and consideration of the asserted claim’s boundaries.
Relevant ANDA Updates highlighted in this issue:
The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.
Bernard B. Pound
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.