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 78

Hatch-Waxman counterclaim provision does not permit generic manufacturer to challenge use code applied to pioneering manufacturer’s Orange Book listed patent
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • May 31 2010

In Novo Nordisk AS v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., No. 10-1001 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2010), the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated the district court’s injunction ordering plaintiffs to replace the current Orange Book use code of a pharmaceutical product with its former use code listing


Patentee who retains substantial rights in patent must join exclusive licensee in infringement suit despite terms of license
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • October 31 2009

In AsymmetRx, Inc. v. Biocare Medical, LLC, No. 09-1094 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2009), the Federal Circuit raised sua sponte the issue of lack of standing of plaintiff AsymmetRx, Inc. (“AsymmetRx”), and on this basis vacated the district court’s grant of SJ to defendant Biocare Medical, LLC (“Biocare”


Patent claiming a method of treatment was not enabled where it failed to establish utility
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • October 31 2009

In In re ’318 Patent Infringement Litigation, Nos. 08-1594, 09-1070, -1088 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2009), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment against Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V., Janssen L.P., and Synaptech, Inc. (collectively “Janssen”), holding that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 4,663,318 (“the ’318 patent”) were invalid for lack of enablement


Claims to methods of optimizing therapeutic efficacy are patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • October 31 2009

In Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, No. 08-1403 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2009), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of SJ of invalidity and 6,355,623 (“the ’623 patent”) and 6,680,302 (“the ’302 patent”) were drawn to statutory subject matter and therefore not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101


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”


A successful invalidity defense to a preliminary injunction need only raise a substantial question of invalidity, a lower standard of proof than the clear and convincing standard required at trial
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • June 30 2009

In Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 08-1039 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2009), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a request by Altana Pharma AG (“Altana”) for a preliminary injunction


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


Suit dismissed based on prior agreements for failure to prove ownership of patents
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • January 30 2010

In Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., Nos. 08-1269, -1270 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2009), the Federal Circuit affirmed a dismissal without prejudice where Tyco Healthcare Group LP (“Tyco Healthcare”) had failed to prove ownership of the asserted patents and thus lacked standing to sue


Prior art patent’s dosage guidelines failed to provide sufficient guidance to prescribe a treatment regimen and did not enable claimed invention so as to anticipate patent-in-suit
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • December 19 2008

In Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 07-1513 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2008), the Federal Circuit held that the district court correctly determined that U.S. Patent No. 5,236,940 (“the ’940 patent”) was not an enabling prior art reference and therefore did not anticipate U.S. Patent No. 5,527,814 (“the ’814 patent”) owned by Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Aventis”


Federal Circuit affirms award of attorneys’ fees for litigation misconduct
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • April 28 2009

In ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc., No. 08-1077 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2009), the Federal Circuit held that the district court correctly granted SJ of noninfringement and SJ of invalidity, did not commit clear error in awarding attorneys fees, and did not abuse its discretion in granting Rule 11 sanctionsall in favor of Alaris Medical Systems, Inc. (“Alaris”