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 69

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


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


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


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 the ITC’s finding of non-infringement after construing claim term in light of specification’s figures and dictionary definitions
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • June 30 2009

In ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. International Trade Commission, No. 08-1358 (Fed. Cir. May 19, 2009), the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s ruling in favor of Canady Technology, LLC and Canady Technology Germany GmbH (collectively “Canady”) that Canady did not infringe claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,720,745 (“the ’745 patent”


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


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