Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
In a precedential opinion issued on April 11, 2024 in Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., Nos. 22-2153, 23-1952, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for...more
Hosted by ACI, 18th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes Conference returns to New York City for another exciting year with curated programming that not only addresses the hot topics, but also puts them within the context of pre-suit...more
Case Name: Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. v. Padagis Israel Pharms. Ltd., No. CV 20-5426 (SRC), 2022 WL 17352334 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2022) (Chesler, J.) Drug Products and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Duobrii® (halobetasol...more
Case Name: Takeda Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Norwich Pharms., Inc., No. 20-8966 (SRC), 2022 WL 17959811 (D.N.J. Dec. 27, 2022) (Chesler, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Vyvanse® (1-lysine-d-amphetamine dimesylate); U.S....more
Case Name: Chiesi USA, Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., Civ. No. 19-18756, 2022 WL 3703207 (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2022) (Quraishi, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Cleviprex® (clevidipine injectable emulsions); U.S....more
Case Name: Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma Ltd. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. No. 18-390 (MN), 2022 WL 3562555 (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2022) (Noreika, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Velphoro® (sucroferric...more
When there are multiple ANDA filers for the same drug, it may not be possible for a branded pharmaceutical company to bring Hatch-Waxman Act patent infringement suits against all of them in the same court consistent with the...more
In the weeks preceding a recent Hatch-Waxman bench trial, a district court excluded portions of an expert’s opinion on obviousness that addressed internal documents and inventor testimony concerning the “inventors’ path” to...more
Case Name: Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., Civ. No. 19-78-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2022) (Andrews, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Esbriet® (pirfenidone); U.S. Patent Nos. 7,566,729 (“the ’729 patent”), 7,635,707...more
Case Name: Adapt Pharma Operations Ltd. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Case No. 2020-2106, 25 F.4th 1354 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) (Circuit Judges Newman, Prost, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by Stoll, J.; Dissenting Opinion by...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
Case Name: Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. v. Padagis Israel Pharms. Ltd., Civ. No. 2:20-cv-05426-SRC-CLW (consol.), 2021 WL 4593271 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2021) (Waldor, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Bryhali® (halobetasol...more
Case Name: Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 18-cv-734, 2021 WL 5323737 (D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2021) (Cecchi, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Invega Sustenna® (paliperidone palmitate); U.S. Patent No....more
Biogen International GMBH, Biogen MA, Inc., v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. marks the Federal Circuit’s most recent interpretation of the 35 U.S.C. § 112 written description requirement in the Hatch-Waxman context. No....more
Case Name: Auxilium Pharms., Inc. v. FCB I LLC, Civ. No. 20-16456, 2021 WL 2802537 (D.N.J. July 6, 2021) (Vazquez, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Testim® (testosterone gel); U.S. Patents Nos. 7,320,968 (“the ’968...more
Arguments to the Patent Office That Contradict Information Submitted to the FDA Support an Inference of Deceptive Intent In Belcher Pharmaceuticals v. Hospira, Inc., Appeal No. 20-1799, the Federal Circuit held that a...more
BELCHER PHARMACEUTICALS v. HOSPIRA, INC. Before Reyna, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from the District of Delaware. Summary: A patentee committed inequitable conduct by advancing an argument during patent prosecution...more
BECAUSE THE PRIOR ART TAUGHT OVERLAPPING PH RANGES AND STRUCTURALLY SIMILAR COMPOUNDS AS THOSE CLAIMED IN THE PATENT-IN-SUIT, THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT REVERSED SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS. Case Name: Valeant Pharms...more
BECAUSE A POSA WOULD NOT HAVE SELECTED THE PRIOR-ART COMPOUND AS A “LEAD COMPOUND,” AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE INVENTION MET AN UNMET NEED AND OVERCAME INDUSTRY SKEPTICISM, DEFENDANT FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE...more
The Federal Circuit reversed a decision from the District Court for the District of Delaware invalidating three patents on anticipation grounds, finding the district court improperly relied on disclosures from multiple...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al., Appeal Nos. 2018-2414, et al. (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2020) - In this appeal from Markman and summary judgment opinions by the district court in a...more
In a precedential opinion on October 4, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in OSI Pharmaceuticals v. Apotex, No. 2018-1925, reversed the Board’s Final Written Decision in an inter partes review...more
The Situation: In a Hatch-Waxman litigation, a district court determined that the claims covering a method of using the drug everolimus to treat kidney cancers were not obvious. The court found a motivation to "pursue"...more
The Situation: In a Hatch-Waxman litigation, the claims recite oxymorphone with less than 0.001% of an impurity called 14-hydroxymorphinone. The prior art includes confidential communications from the FDA to oxymorphone...more
For the first time, on March 28, 2019, the Federal Circuit addressed obviousness of polymorph claims based on a known approach to polymorph screening, finding no reasonable expectation of success....more