We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-8 of 8

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 16 2010

When infringement is not at issue, a lawsuit for breach of know-how and patent license agreement does not arise under patent law

For purposes of determining patent term extension under 35 U.S.C 156, an enantiomer has consistently been recognized, by the FDA and the PTO, as a different “drug product” from its racemate

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 18 2010

The patent-in-suit covered an antimicrobial compound having the common name levofloxacin, and is the levorotatory enantiomer of the racemate ofloxacin, which is a known antimicrobial product

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v Barr Laboratories, Inc

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 2 2010

In a patent infringement suit involving claims directed to the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, the patent at issue was the third in a chain of related divisional patents

Therasense, Inc v Becton, Dickinson and Co

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 2 2010

An applicant’s earlier statements about prior art, especially one’s own prior art, are material to the PTO when those statements directly contradict the applicant’s position regarding that prior art in the PTO

In determining patent term extensions under 35 U.S.C. 156, the statutory term “active ingredient” means the product, not the active moiety of the product, that is present in the approved drug

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 18 2010

The patentee owned a patent to a chemical compound MAL hydrochloride (“MAL”), which was patented and received FDA approval to treat precancerous cell growths on the skin

Novo Nordisk AS v Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 23 2010

The Hatch-Waxman Act only authorizes a counterclaim to correct or delete a patent number or expiration date listed in the FDA Orange Book; an ANDA defendant does not have standing to challenge any other listed information, including the use code description

Therasense, Inc v Becton, Dickinson and Co

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 2 2010

To anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose, either expressly or inherently, all of the elements of the claim arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim