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 76

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


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


Safe-harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. 121 applies to a divisional of a divisional - even one filed voluntarily, claiming several nonelected inventions
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • February 28 2010

In Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., No. 09-1032 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2010), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding of invalidity, holding that a retroactive terminal disclaimer cannot overcome obviousness-type double patenting


Erroneous jury instructions not grounds for overturning a verdict where jury is not prejudiced
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • February 28 2010

In Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., Nos. 09-1008, -1009, -1010, -1034, -1035, -1036, -1037 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2010), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of JMOL


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


A drug formulation is obvious if there are a finite number of options for making the formulation
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • September 30 2009

In Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., No. 08-1282 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2009), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that U.S. Patent No. 6,787,531 (“the 531 patent”) was invalid for obviousness


Corroborating testimony and documentation was sufficient to show prior art device was on sale
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • December 31 2007

In Adenta GmbH v. OrthoArm, Inc., Nos. 06-1571, -1598 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 19, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of OrthoArm, Inc.’s (“OrthoArm”) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction


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