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

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


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


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


Trade dress protection: eye candy
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • April 30 2009

The sweeping competition injected into the industry by generic-drug manufacturers has increased the need for brand-name drugmakers to boost consumer recognition of, and desire for, their branded products


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


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”


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