News & Analysis as of

Safe Harbors Generic Drugs Patent Litigation

Proskauer - Minding Your Business

The Broad Impact of Edwards v. Meril on the Safe Harbor Provision

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., has garnered significant attention, especially concerning the application of the “safe harbor” provision under 35 U.S.C. §...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

In Wake of In re Cellect, District Court Interprets Safe Harbor Statute and Finds Patent Not Invalid for Obviousness-Type Double...

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently held on summary judgment that a patent with 2,295 days of combined patent term adjustment (PTA) and patent term extension (PTE) was not invalid for obviousness-type...more

Fenwick & West Life Sciences Group

Will the Supreme Court Review Whether FDA-Mandated Bioequivalence Testing to Maintain Approval Falls Within the § 271(e)(1) Safe...

The Supreme Court has been asked to review whether the safe harbor established by 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) encompasses a generic drug manufacturer’s bioequivalence testing performed only as a condition of maintaining FDA...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

The question of the extent to which the "safe harbor" against infringement as part of the Hatch-Waxman Act (set forth in 35 U.S.C § 271(e)(1)) extends to activities post-generic drug approval is unresolved, as evidenced by...more

BakerHostetler

Momenta Pharma., Inc. v. Teva Pharma. USA Inc.

BakerHostetler on

In Momenta Pharma., Inc. v. Teva Pharma. USA Inc., Nos. 2014-1274, -1277, -1276, and -1278 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2015) (“Momenta II”), the Federal Circuit found that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), “made” is limited to steps...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supplier to ANDA Filer Is Not Liable for Induced Infringement Until After ANDA Approval - Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms., LLC

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the scope of the safe harbor provision of § 271(e)(1), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court, holding that supplying an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) to the filer of...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms. LLC

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms. LLC, 2014-1736, -1737, -1738, -1739, -1740, -1741, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16908 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2015) (Circuit Judges Moore, Mayer, and Linn presiding; Opinion by Linn, J.) (Appeal...more

McDermott Will & Emery

When a Divisional Is Not a Divisional: No Section 121 Safe Harbor for Reissue Patentee Who Retroactively Omitted New Matter - G.D....

Addressing the “safe harbor” provision under 35 U.S.C. § 121, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a district court ruling that a reissue patent was invalid for obviousness-type double patenting. G.D....more

8 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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