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 950

Judge Stark (D. Del.) Holds Generic Label is Insufficient to Prove Induced Infringement
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • USA
  • April 9 2018

Following a seven-day trial last year, a jury found that Teva willfully induced infringement of claims of U.S. Patent


No State Law Remedies for Failure to Comply with BPCIA Notice
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • January 25 2018

On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that under the Biologics Price


Does It Still Cost $2.7B to Develop a Drug? Regardless, Patent Protection is Key!
  • Dilworth IP
  • USA
  • January 23 2018

We have previously reported that the cost to develop a new drug is roughly $2.7B (inflation adjusted). This price tag was determined by the Tufts


Sandoz v Amgen: An update
  • Bristows LLP
  • USA
  • January 9 2018

In our most recent publication, the Bristows' Biotech Review (Page 3), we reported on the US Supreme Court decision which, at the time, was the latest


Anticipated Acts of Infringement May Establish Venue for Hatch-Waxman
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 31 2017

Addressing venue in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation, the US District Court for the District of Delaware held that venue is proper in Delaware


Amgen Files Infringement Suit Against Mylan Over Neulasta Biosimilar
  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
  • USA
  • September 28 2017

Amgen has filed patent infringement claims against Mylan and its subsidiaries over Mylan’s proposed biosimilar version of Neulasta (pegfilgrastim


专利权利用尽和制药业
  • Dilworth IP
  • USA
  • September 28 2017

5月30日最高法院在Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International


New Patent Infringement Cases Provide Guidance on Analyzing Venue in the Wake of TC Heartland
  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • USA
  • September 19 2017

On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a watershed decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), analyzing


U.S. - What does the Impression Products v. Lexmark decision mean for drug companies? 5 takeaways
  • Hogan Lovells
  • USA
  • September 11 2017

Last May, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly-anticipated decision in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., reversing the Federal


At The Bench: 2017 Mid-Year Case Review
  • Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC
  • USA
  • September 7 2017

The Supreme Court held that all patent rights are exhausted upon the first sale of a Patented product, regardless of where the sale is made or whether