GENERICally Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Litigation Bulletin

Fourth Quarter

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:

  • H. Lundbeck A/S v. Lupin Ltd.
    Trintellix® (vortioxetine)
    Defendants’ proposed carved-out label was the basis for the court’s non-infringement opinion, which was affirmed on appeal.
  • Actelion Pharms. Ltd. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.
    Veletri® (epoprostenol)
    Because the District Court should have addressed the extrinsic evidence to understand how a skilled artisan would understand the claim language, the Federal Circuit vacated the lower court’s construction of “a pH of 13 or higher” and its judgment of infringement.
  • Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
    Korlym® (mifepristone)
    Plaintiff did not meet its burden to prove induced infringement because there was no direct infringement and no intent to induce on the part of the Defendant.
  • Acadia Pharms. Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.
    Nuplazid® (pimavanserin tartrate)
    The patent-in-suit was not invalid for obviousness-type double patenting based on the court’s interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 121.
  • Eisai R&D Mgmt. Co., Ltd. v. Dr Reddy’s Labs., Inc.
    Halaven® (eribulin mesylate)
    The court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff offered defendant a covenant not to sue thereby divesting the court of subject matter jurisdiction.
  • Norwich Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra
    Xifaxan® (rifaximin)
    Because the district court’s final judgment explicitly prohibited final approval until a date certain, the FDA did not err in granting tentative—and not final—approval to an amended ANDA that included a skinny label.
  • Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. v. Padagis Israel Pharms. Ltd.
    Arazlo® (tazarotene)
    The court granted plaintiff’s Rule 12(c) motion concerning Defendant’s inequitable conduct counterclaim because Defendant raised a new argument unsupported by the factual allegations in its Amended Answer and did not plead facts that would make plausible the inference that, but for the withholding certain material prior art, Plaintiff would not have overcome the rejection for obviousness and obtained allowance.

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.


Oren D. Langer


Managing Partner, New York Office

Christine May


Related Publications

Second Quarter
GENERICally Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Litigation Bulletin
Oren Langer, Christopher Pinahs, Emily Tremblay, and Christine May
June 25, 2024
Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharms. USA Inc.
GENERICally Speaking Hatch Waxman Bulletin
June 10, 2024
Teva Branded Pharm. Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharms. of NY, LLC
GENERICally Speaking Hatch Waxman Bulletin
April 30, 2024
Pharmacyclics LLC v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC
GENERICally Speaking Hatch Waxman Bulletin
First Quarter
GENERICally Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Litigation Bulletin
Oren Langer, Christopher Pinahs, Emily Tremblay, and Christine May
Back to Top