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.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 26

In re Hugh Edward Montgomery, John Francis Martin, and Jorge Daniel Erusalimsky, No. 2011-1376 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 31 2012

Prior art describing an unexecuted process or protocol may inherently anticipate claims when the result at issue inevitably flows from its disclosures

Astrazeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc.

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 9 2010

If a drug's product label includes instructions that could cause some users to perform the patented method, then courts may find that the manufacturer had an affirmative intent to induce infringement

Pharma corner

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • November 7 2011

In this edition we report on mixed fortunes for pharmaceutical patent holders in EU litigation

Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., No. 2012-1228 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 26 2012

Defendants’ burden of proof for invalidity is not raised because a reference was previously before the PTO; statements made during prosecution to rebut enablement rejections under Section 112 may be used as proof of motivation to combine references under Section 103

Medeva

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 25 2012

Much has been said about the meaning of “specified in the wording of the claims”, a phrase which the Court of Justice of the European Union used when describing products which can be protected by a Supplementary Protection Certificate (“SPC”

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 3 2010

For obviousness-type double patenting, a claim to a method of using a composition is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent's claim to the identical composition where the earlier patent discloses the identical use; where multiple uses are disclosed in the earlier patent, a later patent impermissibly extends the monopoly if it claims any of the disclosed uses

When a commercial product meets all of the claim limitations, a comparison to that product may support a finding of infringement

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 10 2010

The district court entered a judgment that the accused infringer’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) product would not infringe the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit

The simple inclusion of a novel, yet functionally unrelated limitation, such as one requiring “informing” an individual of the properties of the claim, adds no novelty to that claim for anticipation purposes

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 10 2010

The assignor owned two patents directed to the muscle relaxant drug Metaxalone

A claim construction that renders asserted claims facially nonsensical “cannot be correct.”

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 10 2010

The patentee sued the alleged infringer on a patent involving safety needles for blood collection

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., v. Eisai Co., Ltd.

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 21 2010

A subsequent ANDA filer has a legally cognizable interest in when the first filer's exclusivity period begins, such that delay in triggering that period qualifies as "injury-in-fact" for the purposes of Article III

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Jurisdiction

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy