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 63

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


Effective uses of reissues and reexaminations in the United States
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • June 30 2009

The reissue and reexamination procedures of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are valuable tools for businesses that want to strengthen their patent portfolio or weaken that of their competitors


Trade dress protection: eye candy
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • April 30 2009

The sweeping competition injected into the industry by generic-drug manufacturers has increased the need for brand-name drugmakers to boost consumer recognition of, and desire for, their branded products


New and improved drug product eligible for patent term extension pursuant to 35 u.s.c. 156
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • June 30 2010

In Photocure ASA v. Kappos, No. 09-1393 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2010), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s reversal of the PTO’s denial of Photocure ASA’s (“Photocure”) request for a patent term extension pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 156


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


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


Appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to a patent for a method for treating ear infections is that of a person with experience in pharmaceutical formulations, not just a pediatrician or general practitioner
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • December 31 2007

In Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., No. 06-1564 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 12, 2007) (precedential opinion), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment that U.S. Patent No. 5,401,741 (“the ’741 patent”) was not obvious, finding that the district court clearly erred in its determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art and that the ’741 patent would have been obvious in view of prior art


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