Latest Posts › Intellectual Property Protection

Share:

Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC

Case Name: Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC, No. 2019-1021, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9341 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2020) (Circuit Judges Lourie, Moore, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by Moore, J.) (Appeal from D. Del., Stark,...more

Belcher Pharms., LLC v. Hospira, Inc.

Case Name: Belcher Pharms., LLC v. Hospira, Inc., No. 17-775-LPS, 2020 WL 1650535 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2020) (Stark, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: epinephrine injection; U.S. Patent No. 9,283,197 (“the ’197...more

HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc.

THE DISTRICT COURT’S FINDINGS REGARDING INDEFINITENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, AND NON-OBVIOUSNESS WERE AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE COURT. Case Name: HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., No. 2017-2149, -2152, -2153,...more

AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.

BECAUSE DELAWARE WAS AN IMPROPER VENUE FOR DEFENDANT MYLAN, AND DEFENDANT 3M DEMONSTRATED THAT VARIOUS FACTORS WEIGHED IN FAVOR OF A TRANSFER, THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA. Case...more

Horizon Meds. LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Inc.

RELYING ON A FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISION THAT INVALIDATED FOR LACKING AN ADEQUATE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION A PATENT FROM WHICH THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT DESCEND, THE COURT DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR FAILING...more

Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Amneal Pharms. LLC

WHILE ITS DECISION WAS A “CLOSE CALL,” THE COURT WAS NOT PREPARED TO FIND THAT PLAINTIFF’S TACTICS ENTIRELY BASELESS OR ITS LITIGATION CONDUCT SO EGREGIOUS AS TO WARRANT FEES. Case Name:Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Amneal...more

Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. West-Ward Pharms. Int’l Ltd.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT GRANTED BUT DENIED WITH RESPECT TO INDUCED INFRINGEMENT. Case Name: Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. West-Ward Pharms. Int’l Ltd., No. 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS...more

Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC

AFTER A FIVE-DAY JURY TRIAL FINDING NON-INFRINGEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S RULE 59(E) MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WAS DENIED. Case Name:Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC, No. 17-205-CFC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213415 (D. Del. Dec. 11,...more

Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd.

Case Name: Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd., 2018-2361, 945 F.3d 1184 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 27, 2019) (Judges O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen presiding; Opinion by Reyna, J.) (Appeal from D. Del., Bryson, J.)....more

Duke Univ. v. Akorn, Inc.

THE COURT GRANTED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT’S ANTITRUST AND PATENT MISUSE COUNTERCLAIMS AND RELATED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES. Case Name: Duke Univ. v. Akorn, Inc., Civ. No. 3:18-cv-14035-BRM-TJB, 2019 U.S. Dist....more

Bausch Health Cos. v. Actavis Labs. FL

RELYING ON PLAINTIFFS’ TESTING OF DEFENDANT’S ANDA PRODUCT, AND FINDING THAT THE PRIOR ART TAUGHT AWAY FROM THE CLAIMED INVENTION, THE COURT HELD THE ASSERTED CLAIMS VALID AND INFRINGED. Case Name: Bausch Health Cos. v....more

Forest Labs., LLC v. Sigmapharm Labs., LLC

THE COURT DENIES DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT IN RESPONSE TO ANDA HOLDER MODIFICATION OF ITS ANDA SPECIFICATION AFTER TRIAL. Case Name: Forest Labs., LLC v. Sigmapharm Labs., LLC, No. 14-1119- MSG...more

166 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 7

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide