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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 117

Judge Stark grants defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings based on collateral estoppel in ANDA patent infringement action
  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • USA
  • September 8 2012

By Memorandum Opinion entered in Galderma Laboratories Inc., et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 11-1106-LPS (D.Del., September 7, 2012), the Honorable Leonard P. Stark granted defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings based on collateral estoppel after finding that the issue of whether a product containing 40 mg of doxycycline, administered once daily, infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,232,572 and 7,211,267 (referred to as the “Ashley patents”) was previously litigated and decided against the Galderma plaintiffs in a related ANDA action captioned Research Found. of State Univ. of New York v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 809 F. Supp.2d 896 (D.Del. 2011) (referred to as the “Mylan Action”


Court victory helps biotechs better define patents
  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • USA
  • September 3 2012

In a decision hailed as a victory for biotech, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the federal circuit recently ruled, for the second time, that the isolated DNA and cancer drug screening processes of a Utah-based company are patentable inventions


How long does patent and trademark prosecution take?
  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • USA
  • December 20 2012

The USPTO recently issued its Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2012


Looking back at U.S. patent law big changes in 2012 (part 1)
  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • USA
  • December 27 2012

U.S. patent law experienced a significant number of changes in 2012, as the America Invents Act, new regulations, USPTO actions and court decisions all


Federal Circuit: USPTO can overturn patent in reexamination even after a court refuses to do so
  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • USA
  • October 30 2012

A recent Federal Circuit decision ruled that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may overturn a patent in a reexamination proceeding, even after a district court has refused to find the patent invalid


Judge Andrews denies Dell's motion to transfer in Round Rock patent infringement action
  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • USA
  • November 30 2012

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Round Rock Research, LLC v. Dell, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-976-RGA (D.Del., November 15, 2012), the Court denied defendant Dell, Inc.’s motion to transfer the action to the Northern District of California


Executive order declares December 24, 2012 a federal holiday
  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • USA
  • December 23 2012

President Obama has issued an executive order that closes all executive branch offices and agencies on Monday, December 24, 2012. For the patent and


Akamai: inducement of patent infringement can occur even if no single entity performs the entire patented method
  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • USA
  • September 4 2012

The Federal Circuit recently made it easier for patent holders to address what the Court called “the problem of divided infringement,” i.e., a situation where a defendant induces several other parties to collectively perform all steps required to infringe a patent, but no single entity performs all of the steps itself


Judge Robinson grants in part and denies in part defendants' motion for judgment on pleadings in patent infringement action
  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2012

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., et el. v. Lupin Limited, et al., Civil Action No. 11-271-SLR (Consol.) (D.Del., December 7, 2012), the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants Lupin’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings


Motion to compel noninfringementinvalidity contentions premature where discovery outstanding from both parties
  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • USA
  • September 11 2012

Magistrate Judge Lindsay of the Eastern District of New York denied as premature plaintiff's motion to compel defendant's response to contention interrogatories concerning invalidity and noninfringement defenses where plaintiff had not yet repsonded to all of defedant's discovery demands and substantial discovery remained to be exchanged between the parties, in Carson Optical, Inc. v. Prym Consumer USA, Inc