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 72

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


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


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


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


Ordinary skill cannot substitute for disclosure of an invention’s novel aspects to satisfy the enablement requirement
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • May 31 2010

In ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, LLC, No. 09-1350 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 26, 2010), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,919,373 (“the ’373 patent”) were invalid for lack of enablement


Federal Circuit clarifies that the rule against reissue recapture applies to subject matter surrendered during prosecution of related patent applications
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • May 31 2010

In MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., No. 08-1288 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2010), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding of invalidity of claims 27, 28, 32, and 33 of U.S. Reissue Patent No. 36,885 (“the RE ’885 patent”) based on the rule against recapture, and reversed the district court’s holding of invalidity of all other claims


Hatch-Waxman counterclaim provision does not permit generic manufacturer to challenge use code applied to pioneering manufacturer’s Orange Book listed patent
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • May 31 2010

In Novo Nordisk AS v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., No. 10-1001 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2010), the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated the district court’s injunction ordering plaintiffs to replace the current Orange Book use code of a pharmaceutical product with its former use code listing


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