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 66

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


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


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


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”


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


Federal Circuit again orders transfer from Eastern District of Texas
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • January 29 2010

In In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., No. 09-M911 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2, 2009), the Federal Circuit held that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas clearly abused its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a


Suit dismissed based on prior agreements for failure to prove ownership of patents
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • January 30 2010

In Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., Nos. 08-1269, -1270 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2009), the Federal Circuit affirmed a dismissal without prejudice where Tyco Healthcare Group LP (“Tyco Healthcare”) had failed to prove ownership of the asserted patents and thus lacked standing to sue


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