Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 44

Corroborating testimony and documentation was sufficient to show prior art device was on sale

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

In Adenta GmbH v. OrthoArm, Inc., Nos. 06-1571, -1598 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 19, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of OrthoArm, Inc.’s (“OrthoArm”) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

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

Attorney argument regarding what inferences to draw and not disclosing details of a process for a defense under 35 USC 102(g) when the patent covered a process broadly did not amount to fraud

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

In Apotex Corp. v. Merck & Co., No. 06-1405 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Apotex Corp.’s (“Apotex”) motion to set aside a judgment on charges of fraud and its refusal to compel discovery sought by Apotex

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

Trademark protection for ASPIRINA denied as proposed mark is merely descriptive and similar in sound, appearance, and meaning to generic term “aspirin”

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
-
USA
-
July 25 2007

In In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, No. 06-1279 (Fed. Cir. May 24, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s ruling that the proposed mark ASPIRINA was merely descriptive for analgesic goods and affirmed the denial of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft’s (“Bayer”) intent-to-use application to register the mark

Federal Circuit’s decision in Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc. will not be reheard or reviewed en banc

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
-
USA
-
July 25 2007

In Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., No. 06-1261 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2007), the Federal Circuit denied Pfizer, Inc.’s (“Pfizer”) request to rehear the case or review the panel’s decision en banc

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 patent laws preempt District of Columbia statute that imposes limits on “excessive” prices for patented drugs

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
-
USA
-
September 30 2007

In Biotechnology Industry Organization v. District of Columbia, No. 06-1593 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the District of Columbia’s (“the District” or “D.C.”) Prescription Drug Excessive Price Act of 2005, codified at D.C. Code 28-4551 to 28-4555 (“the Act”), is preempted by federal patent laws, and affirmed an injunction that prevents its enforcement

An Article III controversy exists where a patent holder unilaterally grants a covenant not to sue to a subsequent ANDA filer and the covenant potentially delays that filer’s market entry

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
-
USA
-
May 30 2008

In Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., No. 07-1404 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2008), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal for lack of Article III jurisdiction Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.’s (“Caraco”) DJ action, holding that an Article III controversy still existed between the parties despite Forest Laboratories, Inc.’s (“Forest”) unilateral grant to Caraco of a covenant not to sue for patent infringement

Isolation of the most therapeutically active ingredient was obvious where the ingredient was present in a mixture in the prior art

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

In Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Lupin, Ltd., Nos. 06-1530, -1555 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2007), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and held that the subject matter of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,061,722 (“the ’722 patent”) was invalid as obvious over various prior art references