Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part IV: The Usefulness Paradox
- Teva Capitulates to Federal Trade Commission Coercion
- USPTO Issues Memoranda on Subject Matter Eligibility
- USPTO Revokes Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventorship, But Rules Remain Basically the Same
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part III: Eligible Independent Claims Can Have Ineligible Dependent Claims
about
Category: Infringement – Contributory or Induced
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court decision that the label for a generic drug obtained from an ANDA would not induce infringement by reciting optional drug storage conditions the read on the NDA holder's Orange Book-listed patents, in Metacel Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Rubicon Research Private Ltd. (non-precedential). The matter…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The Federal Circuit once again had an opportunity to opine on the extent of behavior by a generic drugmaker who opts to accept a "section viii carve-out" in its FDA approval (resulting in a so-called "skinny label) on liability for inducing infringement in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – A fractured affirmance of a district court decision to dismiss an infringement action under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) was the occasion for the Federal Circuit to illustrate the continued debate over the scope of the safe harbor enacted as part of the Hatch-Waxman Act in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – Today, the Supreme Court again disregarded the views of the Federal government regarding whether to grant certiorari, here in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, and in some ways the only positive outcome is that the Court has shown it is willing to refuse to take action is cases other than…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court judgment of invalidity for obviousness and for noninfringement for a series of patents challenged in ANDA litigation, in Genentech Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. In doing so, a majority of the panel illustrated perhaps unintentionally how initial impressions regarding the issues before the Court…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — U.S. patent law grants patent owners the right to grant licenses to their patents in analogy to landlords granting rents to real property as a license to use without obtaining ownership. 35 U.S.C. §§ 261-262. But the complexities that can ensue, both in what is licensed and when it is…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed imposition of an exclusion order under 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930) by the Federal Trade Commission against 10X Genomyx (an intervenor in this appeal) over importation of patented microfluidic chips, in Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade…
-
What Quantum of Culpable Conduct Is Required for an ANDA Applicant to Induce Infringement? By Kevin E. Noonan — The back-and-forth, (almost) cat-and-mouse-like competition between branded innovator and generic drug makers sanctioned under the Hatch-Waxman Act has been on-going for over thirty years. As part of this regime, Congress has provided a pathway for generic…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit earlier this week affirmed a District Court's decision invalidating almost all of the claims asserted against an ANDA filer, in HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. Nevertheless, because a claim was held invalid and infringed, the proposed generic compound is delayed from coming to market.…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — One person's attempt at judicial economy can be another person's impermissible shortcut, and when it arises in the context of a summary judgment motion of noninfringement, it can amount to legal (or at least procedural) error on appeal. Such is the case in NeuroGrafix v. Brainlab, Inc., decided last week…
Patent Docs 