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 76

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


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


Claims to methods of optimizing therapeutic efficacy are patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • October 31 2009

In Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, No. 08-1403 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2009), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of SJ of invalidity and 6,355,623 (“the ’623 patent”) and 6,680,302 (“the ’302 patent”) were drawn to statutory subject matter and therefore not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101


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


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


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


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


Corroborating testimony and documentation was sufficient to show prior art device was on sale
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • December 31 2007

In Adenta GmbH v. OrthoArm, Inc., Nos. 06-1571, -1598 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 19, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of OrthoArm, Inc.’s (“OrthoArm”) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction


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