Federal Circuit Allows Teva Patents to Remain in Orange Book. - The Federal Circuit recently granted Teva Pharmaceutical’s motion for a stay of removal of its patents from the Orange Book in its ongoing dispute with...more
Calls for Removal of Device Patents Listed in the Orange Book Continue. FTC and Congressional action scrutinizing allegedly “improper” Orange Book listings continued apace in the first few months of 2024. ...more
The European Commission (EC) has fined five pharmaceutical companies a total of EUR13.4 million for participating in a cartel concerning N-Butylbromide Scopolamine/Hyoscine (SNBB) – an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API)...more
Case Name: Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 2023-1247, 2023 WL 3335538 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2023)(Circuit Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Prost presiding; Opinion by Dyk, J.) (Appeal from D. Del., Connolly, J.)....more
On May 15, 2023, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al., a case some argued had enormous implications for so-called “skinny labeling” practices amongst generic drug...more
Case Name: Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Nos. 22-7528, 22-7529 (CCC), 2023 WL 1883357 (D.N.J. Feb. 10, 2023) (Cecchi, J.) - Drug Products and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Hetlioz® (tasimelteon); U.S. Patent No....more
On March 29, 2023, the Solicitor General of the United States asked the Supreme Court to review a Federal Circuit judgment in a Hatch-Waxman case between Teva and GSK. In its decision below, the Federal Circuit held that Teva...more
ADAPT PHARMA OPERATIONS LTD. V. TEVA PHARMS. USA, INC. Before Newman, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: Recent attempts by competitors to achieve...more
Skinny labels are back in focus at the White House. On September 9, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services submitted its much-anticipated report to the White House Competition Counsel regarding a...more
On August 5, 2021, the Federal Circuit withdrew its October 2020 opinion in GSK v. Teva, summarized in this post on induced infringement of method-of-treatment claims, and issued an opinion that reiterated the prior holding...more
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. [OPINION] – PRECEDENTIAL - Before Moore, Newman, Prost (dissent). Panel rehearing of an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware - Summary:...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now vacated its prior ruling finding induced infringement based on so-called skinny labeling on a pharmaceutical product. GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA...more
A Federal Circuit panel on Tuesday vacated its earlier finding that Teva induced infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE40,000, GSK’s patent covering its drug, Coreg®, and set a new round of oral argument for February 23. Back in...more
Coreg® (carvedilol) - Case Name: GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 2018-1976, -2023 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2020) (Circuit Judges Prost, Newman, and Moore presiding; Opinion by Newman, J.; Dissent by Prost, C.J.)...more
Tirosint®/levothyroxine sodium - Case Name: IBSA Institut Biochimique, S.A. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 2019-2400 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020) (Circuit Judges Prost, Reyna, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Prost, C.J.)...more
Section viii of the Hatch-Waxman Act, 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(viii), allows a generic applicant to “carve out” indications and other use information from its labeling that are protected by patents listed in FDA’s Orange Book...more
What Quantum of Culpable Conduct Is Required for an ANDA Applicant to Induce Infringement? The back-and-forth, (almost) cat-and-mouse-like competition between branded innovator and generic drug makers sanctioned under the...more
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. [OPINION] – PRECEDENTIAL - Before Prost, Newman, and Moore. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware - Summary: Evidence of inducement for...more
BECAUSE A SKILLED ARTISAN WOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THE LIMITATIONS OF ONE PRIOR-ART REFERENCE AND WOULD HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO SELECT THE TEACHINGS OF ANOTHER REFERENCE TO OVERCOME THEM, THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT WERE OBVIOUS. Case...more
Case Name: Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 2019-2396 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2020) (Circuit Judges Moore, O’Malley, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by O’Malley, J.) (Appeal from D. Del., Andrews, J.). ...more
THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF 1% IVERMECTIN FORMULATION ARE INVALID ON THE BASIS OF ANTICIPATION IN LIGHT OF A PRIOR ART REFERENCE THAT TEACHES APPLICATION OF 1-5% IVERMECTIN FORMULATION FOR TREATMENT OF THE SAME INDICATION. Case...more
The Court Denied Defendant’s Motion To Enforce Its Settlement Agreement With Plaintiff After The At-risk Launch And Subsequent Settlement Of Another Defendant. ...more
Case Name: Teva Pharms. U.S.A., Inc. v. Azar, C.A. No. 18-2394 (RDM), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30346 (D.D.C. Feb 26, 2019) (Moss, J.)....more
Case Name: Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., C.A. No. 17-1240, 1455, 1887, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9189 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2019)....more
Case Name: Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 17-1229, 139 S. Ct. 628 (Jan. 22, 2019) (Thomas, J. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court), on cert. from the Federal Circuit, 855 F.3d 1356. ...more