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 79

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


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


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


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


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


A district court has subject matter jurisdiction to conduct contempt proceedings in an ANDA litigation, but filing of a second ANDA does not violate an injunction where the injunction does not prohibit such a filing
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • December 31 2007

In Abbott Laboratories v. TorPharm, Inc., No. 07-1019 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2007), the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to hold a contempt proceeding on whether Nu-Pharm, Inc.’s (“Nu-Pharm”) filing of an ANDA violated an injunction against TorPharm, Inc., Apotex, Inc., and Apotex Corporation (collectively “Apotex”), but it reversed the district court’s finding of contempt because the injunction contained no “explicit notice” to Apotex that the filing of a new ANDA, by itself or a straw party, was forbidden