News & Analysis as of

Teva Pharmaceuticals GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceutical Industry

WilmerHale

The Interplay: Key Decisions at the Intersection of Antitrust & Life Sciences - March 2024

WilmerHale on

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

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

Axinn IP Update: Supreme Court Denies Cert. in Skinny Label Case, but the Impacts from GSK v. Teva Continue

Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 22-37, locking in the Federal Circuit’s second panel decision (hereafter “GSK v. Teva”), which held that Teva’s attempted...more

Foley Hoag LLP

The Fate of the Skinny Label: Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC

Foley Hoag LLP on

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

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Vacates Judgment, Reinstates Jury's Verdict of Induced Infringement

Jones Day on

Background - On August 5, 2021, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Case No. 18-1976, in favor of GSK, finding that Teva was liable for inducing infringement of GSK's patent....more

Robins Kaplan LLP

GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

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

Fish & Richardson

[Webinar] Life Sciences | 2020 Year in Review - January 27th, 1:30 pm - 2:30 pm ET

Fish & Richardson on

2020 has been referred to as an unprecedented year for the world in so many ways—the pandemic, the California and Washington fires, the racial justice protests and calls to action—but that didn’t stop the Federal Circuit from...more

Hogan Lovells

Labeling carve-out does not shield generic drug makers from induced infringement claims, CAFC rules

Hogan Lovells on

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently decided (2-1) in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. that a labeling carve-out by a generic drug sponsor did not preclude a finding of...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharma. USA, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharma. USA, Inc., No. 14-878, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51169 (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2018) (Stark, J.). Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Coreg® (carvedilol); U.S. Patent No. RE40,000 (“the...more

Baker Donelson

Update on Regulatory Compliance in the Global Health Care Industry

Baker Donelson on

A comprehensive understanding of the constantly evolving layers that make up federal anti-corruption statutes, sanctions regulations and export control restrictions is imperative for both the pharmaceutical and health care...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. No. 14-878-LPS-CJB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94438 (D. Del. July 20, 2016) (Burke, M.J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Coreg® (carvedilol); U.S....more

The Volkov Law Group

Super Moon Harkens Low Tide for Hatch-Waxman Patent Disputes

The Volkov Law Group on

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari in a case that will give pharmaceutical companies pause when considering whether to settle patent challenges under Hatch-Waxman. The Supreme Court’s...more

Latham & Watkins LLP

Supreme Court Denies Cert in Lamictal Pay-For-Delay Litigation

Latham & Watkins LLP on

Third Circuit has previously ruled that non-cash payments to settle patent litigation may violate antitrust laws. On November 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the petition of...more

McDermott Will & Emery

ANDA Update - October 2015

McDermott Will & Emery on

Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Court Report -- Part II: November 2014

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Glaxosmithkline LLC et al. 2:14-cv-06627; filed November 19, 2014 in the Eastern District of...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Court Report - July 2014 #3

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al. v. Glenmark Generics Inc. USA 1:14-cv-00877; filed July 3, 2014 in the District Court of...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-995 (WHW), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9257 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2014) (Walls, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Lamictal® (lamotrigine);...more

16 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