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: 1-10 of 34

A district court has subject matter jurisdiction to conduct contempt proceedings in an ANDA litigation, but filing of a second ANDA does not violate an injunction where the injunction does not prohibit such a filing

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2007

In Abbott Laboratories v. TorPharm, Inc., No. 07-1019 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2007), the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to hold a contempt proceeding on whether Nu-Pharm, Inc.’s (“Nu-Pharm”) filing of an ANDA violated an injunction against TorPharm, Inc., Apotex, Inc., and Apotex Corporation (collectively “Apotex”), but it reversed the district court’s finding of contempt because the injunction contained no “explicit notice” to Apotex that the filing of a new ANDA, by itself or a straw party, was forbidden

Follow-on biologics: a patent litigation perspective

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 22 2009

In whatever form biosimilar legislation might take, patent holders will need to review their patent portfolios carefully

Preparing your patent portfolio for follow-on biologics

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 29 2010

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law health insurance reform legislation, H.R. 3590 , a bill which has generated enormous media coverage and publicity

Effective uses of reissues and reexaminations in the United States

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2009

The reissue and reexamination procedures of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are valuable tools for businesses that want to strengthen their patent portfolio or weaken that of their competitors

California’s waiver of sovereign immunity in first case did not waive state’s immunity in later suit

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2007

In Biomedical Patent Management Corp. v. California, No. 06-1515 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss in favor of the state of California, Department of Health Services (“DHS”), on the ground that DHS was entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment

Patentee cannot import features of preferred embodiment into claims

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 31 2007

In Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., Nos. 06-1260, -1437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings of infringement and willfulness, but vacated the permanent injunction issued against Stryker Corporation (“Stryker”) and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange

Federal Circuit again orders transfer from Eastern District of Texas

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 29 2010

In In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., No. 09-M911 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2, 2009), the Federal Circuit held that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas clearly abused its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a

Stem cell patents held to be obvious despite successful reexaminations and jury verdict to the contrary

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 31 2007

In PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc., Nos. 05-1490, -1551 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s JMOL orders of non-infringement, while reversing the district court’s refusal to grant JMOL of patent invalidity

Federal Circuit affirms the ITC’s finding of non-infringement after construing claim term in light of specification’s figures and dictionary definitions

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2009

In ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. International Trade Commission, No. 08-1358 (Fed. Cir. May 19, 2009), the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s ruling in favor of Canady Technology, LLC and Canady Technology Germany GmbH (collectively “Canady”) that Canady did not infringe claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,720,745 (“the ’745 patent”

Comparative quantitative testing not necessary when testing provides sufficient evidence of infringement

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2007

In In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation, No. 06- 1572 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2007), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of SJ of noninfringement, affirmed the district court’s claim construction of disputed terms, and remanded the case for reconsideration of infringement in accordance with the opinion