- 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
-
December 5, 2024Jake Holdreith Named to Twin Cities Business Top 100
-
December 4, 2024Robins Kaplan Obtains $10.5 Million Post-Verdict in Landmark Aerosol Dust Remover Abuse Case
-
December 2, 2024Robins Kaplan LLP Announces 2025 Partners
-
December 12, 2024Strategies for Licensing AI: A Litigation Perspective
-
December 11, 20242024 Year in Review: eDiscovery and Artificial Intelligence
-
December 4, 2024Trust & Estate Litigation in Minnesota
-
December 2024A Landmark Victory for Disabled Homeless Veterans: Q&A with the Trial Team
-
November 8, 2024Trademark tensions on the track: Court upholds First Amendment protections in Haas v. Steiner
-
November 8, 2024Destination Skiing And The DOJ's Mountain Merger Challenge
-
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
First Quarter
This quarterly 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:
- Endo Ventures Unlimited Co. v. Nexus Pharms. Inc.
ephedrine sulfate
Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction granted when Defendant’s principal place of business and state of incorporation were not in the forum state and its intentions to open and use a facility in the forum state could not form a basis for the Court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant. - Mallinckrodt plc v. Airgas Therapeutics LLC
INOmax® (nitric oxide)
The court found that plaintiffs had not met their burden of pleading that French defendant purposefully directed its activities at the United States, and as a result, the court did not have personal jurisdiction. - UCB, Inc. v. Mylan Techs. Inc.
Neupro® (rotigotine)
Because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the scope of defendant’s amended ANDA, defendant’s summary judgment motion seeking a finding that plaintiff breached its covenant not to sue was denied. - Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
Esbriet® (pirfenidone)
As none of the private interest factors set forth in Jumara v. State Farm strongly favored transfer, and most were either neutral or disfavored transfer, the balance of the private interest factors did not weigh in favor of granting defendants’ motion to transfer. - Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Tolmar, Inc.
Invega Sustenna® (paliperidone extended-release suspension)
Defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the patent-in-suit was obvious, lacked adequate written description, and was not enabled. - Endo Par Innovation Co. v. BPI Labs, LLC
Adrenalin® (epinephrine)
Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for a more definite statement was denied when plaintiff’s complaint adequately pled the requisite allegations under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). - Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.
Entresto® (sacubitril/valsartan)
Because Mylan’s ANDA product was substantially pure and comprised a hemipentahydrate, it was found to infringe the patents-in-suit. - Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH, C.A.
Xarelto® (rivaroxaban)
The court retained subject matter jurisdiction in ANDA holder’s declaratory-judgment action even when (i) patentee did not sue within 45 days after receipt of paragraph IV letter and (ii) patentee gave ANDA holder a covenant not to sue.
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.
Related Professionals
Related Publications
Related News
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.