Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, 17-1560 Read Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, 17-1560 Affirming the District Court’s determination that a proposed generic nasal spray would not infringe the patents of a company manufacturing the Nasonex nasal product. Appellate Information Argued Submitted Decided Published 2018/02/09 Judges Court United States Federal Circuit Counsel e-Law
The Medecines Company v. Hospira, Inc., 14-1469 Read The Medecines Company v. Hospira, Inc., 14-1469 Affirming the district court’s finding of noninfringement and remanding to determine whether the on-sale bar applies in a case relating to an anti-coagulant drug because a different production method was distinguished from the patented method and a patent is invalid if the product was offered
Sanofi v. Watson Laboratories Inc., 16-2722 Read Sanofi v. Watson Laboratories Inc., 16-2722 Affirming the district court’s rulings in the case of a patent infringement claim relating to cardiovascular drugs where the court held that the plaintiff had proven that the defense’s sale of proposed generic drugs with their proposed labels would induce physicians to infringe, and holding that none
Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., 16-2169 Read Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., 16-2169 In a patent infringement action, the district court’s judgment for plaintiff Bayer is reversed where it clearly erred in determining that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to create an oral disintegrating tablet version of an erectile dysfunction drug using specified
Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp. v. Hospira, Inc., 17-1115 Read Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp. v. Hospira, Inc., 17-1115 Affirming the district court’s determination that patents relating to aspects of the production of an antibiotic compound were obvious implementations of disclosures made in other patents that would constitute nothing more than the routine way a skilled artisan would apply the
Storer v. Clark, 15-1802 Read Storer v. Clark, 15-1802 In a patent interference case relating to a treatment for hepatitis C, the district court’s judgment is affirmed where the appellant’s provisional specification lacked enough information to synthesize the target compound and therefore did not support a claim of priority and interference. Appellate Information Argued Submitted Decided Published 2017/06/21 Judges Court
Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., 15-1039 Read Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., 15-1039 In a patent infringement suit involving filgrastim drugs, arising in the context of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA), which provides an abbreviated pathway for obtaining FDA approval of a drug that is biosimilar to an already licensed biological product, 42 U.S.C. section
Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., 2017-1645 Read Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., 2017-1645 In an infringement action involving patents which relate to isosulfan blue (ISB), a triarylmethane dye used to map lymph nodes, the district court’s grant of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction precluding defendant from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing the
Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 2016-1284 Read Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 2016-1284 In a suit involving patents directed to intravenous formulations of palonosetron for reducing or reducing the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) alleging that the filing of defendant’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) constituted an infringement of various claims of
Novartis AG . v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., 2016-1352 Read Novartis AG . v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., 2016-1352 In an appeal from the Final Written Decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in two consolidated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings of a patent that relates to a solid pharmaceutical composition suitable for oral administration
