Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Hetlioz® (tasimelteon) - Case Name: Vanda Pharms., Inc. v. FDA, Civ. No. 23-280 (TSC), 2025 WL 485401 (D.D.C. Feb. 13, 2025) (Chutkan, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Hetlioz® (tasimelteon); U.S. Patent No. , a...more
Yondelis® (trabectedin) - Case Name: Janssen Prods., L.P. v. EVER Valinject GmbH, Civ. No. 24-7319, 2025 WL 639380 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2025) (Harjani, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Yondelis® (trabectedin); U.S....more
The Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court decision that the label for a generic drug obtained from an ANDA would not induce infringement by reciting optional drug storage conditions the read on the NDA holder's Orange...more
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD. Before Murphy, Moore, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Arguments and amendments made during prosecution of a parent...more
Yutrepia® (treprostinil inhalation powder) - Case Name: Liquidia Techs., Inc. v. FDA, No. 24-2428 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2025) (Kelly, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Yutrepia® (treprostinil inhalation powder) Nature of...more
Entresto® (valsartan/sacubitril) - Case Name: In re Entresto, 125 F.4th 1090 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2025) (Circuit Judges Lourie, Prost, and Reyna presiding; Opinion by Lourie, C.J.) (Appeal from D. Del., Andrews, J.) Drug...more
Bridion® (sugammadex) - Case Name: Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., No. 2023-2254, 2025 WL 795317 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2025) (Circuit Judges Dyk, Mayer, and Reyna presiding; Opinion by Dyk, C.J.) (Appeal...more
Pegfilgrastim Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more
Invega Trinza® (paliperidone palmitate) - Case Name: Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Mylan Labs. Ltd., No. 2023-2042, 2025 WL 946390 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2025) (Circuit Judges Dyk, Prost, and District Judge Goldberg presiding;...more
Biosimilar Litigations include litigations relating to biosimilar/follow-on products of CDER-listed reference products. Litigations between biosimilar applicants/manufacturers and reference product sponsors as well as...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s noninfringement determination, finding that the presence of a disclaimed compound in the accused product precluded infringement. Azurity Pharm., Inc....more
A March 21 Federal Circuit decision in Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-1320 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2025) marked a victory for generic drug developers, affirming that legal expenses incurred defending...more
The Federal Circuit recently opined on whether a stipulation in litigation can overcome a disclaimer made during the prosecution history of a patent. The Hatch-Waxman Act allows generic drug companies to use clinical results...more
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Appeal No. 2023-1977 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed that defendant Alkem’s proposed generic antibiotic did not...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently considered a novel question regarding calculation of the regulatory review period for patent term extension (PTE) under 35 USC § 156 for reissued patents....more
In Actavis Labs. FL, Inc. v. U.S. (“Actavis”), a recent precedential decision, the Federal Circuit answered an important practical question regarding the interplay between the Hatch-Waxman Act and the Internal Revenue Code:...more
The Federal Circuit held in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., 23-2254 that a reissued patent receives patent term extension (PTE) based on the issue date of the original patent, not the reissue patent,...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a US Court of Federal Claims ruling that Hatch-Waxman Act litigation expenses are ordinary and necessary business expenses under § 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code,...more
In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more
The recent uptick and rise in popularity of GLP-1 drugs for addressing weight loss and obesity has led to an increase in U.S. litigation involving this class of drugs. Over the past few years, litigation has focused on a wide...more
Merck Sharp & Dohm B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. et al (Fed. Cir. March 13, 2025) - The Hatch-Waxman Act seeks to strike a balance in the pharmaceutical industry by incentivizing drugs makers to develop innovative...more
Addressing the calculation of patent term extensions (PTEs) under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision that under the act the issue date of the original...more
Tax developments - Actavis and deductible expenses - On March 21, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released a decision in Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. v. United States, holding that taxpayers could...more
On March 21, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a precedential opinion that legal fees incurred by generic drug companies in defending against patent infringement suits brought under the Hatch-Waxman Act...more
Actavis Labs. FL, Inc. v. United States, Appeal No. 2023-1320 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2025) Our Case of the Week, in the words of its author, Circuit Judge Stark, “is not actually a patent case. It is, instead, a tax case.” In...more