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 73

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


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”


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


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


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”


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


Comparative quantitative testing not necessary when testing provides sufficient evidence of infringement
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • December 31 2007

In In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation, No. 06- 1572 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2007), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of SJ of noninfringement, affirmed the district court’s claim construction of disputed terms, and remanded the case for reconsideration of infringement in accordance with the opinion