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

Litigating patent obviousness
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • October 31 2008

Sound patent protection is a necessity to justify the time and expense of developing new pharmaceutical products


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


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


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


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”


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


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”