There have been only a few precedential decisions from the Federal Circuit related to obviousness since spring sprung. While these decisions have produced mixed results for the lower courts, clinical study protocols have held...more
In the first decision to issue following the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 22-37, Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the...more
On May 15, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s (“Teva”) petition for certiorari in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, ending a nearly nine-year court...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
Squib of Holding and Key Implication: The United States Supreme Court, in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., held on January 22, 2019 that "a commercial sale to a third party who is required to keep...more
Helsinn confirmed that the AIA did not alter the meaning of the “on-sale” bar. In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, the Supreme Court addressed whether a confidential sale of an invention to a...more
Originally published in The Journal Record | January 31, 2019. This month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, confirming that private sales of an invention may preclude...more
On Tuesday, January 22, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that, even where the details of the invention are kept confidential, a commercial sale may place the invention “on sale” under the Leahy-Smith...more
The U.S. Supreme Court may soon resolve an issue that has sparked much debate since the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act — namely, whether under the AIA, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party...more
In the August 2018 edition of Hogan Lovells’ Standard Essential Patent (SEP) Update, we report on recent news and case decisions from China, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This bi-monthly newsletter...more
The US Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the question of whether, under the America Invents Act, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualifies as...more
The prominent state of patent litigation in the United States and Germany is due not only to the size of its markets, but also to a recent increase in hearings before the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Patent...more
This month, we highlight several significant cases including Celgene Corp. v. Hetero Labs Ltd. and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V. as well as new legislation proposed in both houses of Congress with respect to...more
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
2015 U.S. Trademark Developments Every Food and Beverage Lawyer Should Know - In 2015, U.S. courts provided trademark practitioners with several issues to discuss and debate. Identified and summarized below are the...more
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
Case Name: Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., v. Sandoz, Inc., Fed. Cir. Nos. 2012-1567, -1568, -1569, -1570, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10229 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2015) (Circuit Judges Moore, Mayer, and Wallach presiding; Opinion by Moore,...more
Recently, the Third Circuit issued the first federal appellate decision interpreting the Supreme Court's landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.[1], potentially greatly expanding the scope of settling parties in reverse...more
The More Things Change (Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America), the More They Stay the Same (Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.) - On June 18, 2015, the Federal Circuit handed down...more
Addressing the issue of de novo versus differential claim construction review post-Teva, the Supreme Court of the United States remanded back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a case where de novo review...more
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: IS IT TIME TO RETHINK HOW YOU WILL ARGUE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION? The United States Supreme Court decided in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. that the Federal Circuit must review all...more
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court provided guidance on the standard of review for claim construction on appeal in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 12-854. The Court held “[w]hen reviewing a district...more
The Supreme Court recently decided a patent case involving a significant procedural issue. In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (1/20/15), the question before the Court was whether the Federal...more
In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, slip op. 574 U.S. __ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that underlying factual issues resolved while formally construing a disputed patent claim term at the...more
On January 20, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, rejected the de novo review standard applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when reviewing all claim construction...more