Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Judicial Conduct and Disability Committee Has Its Say, Denies Judge Newman’s Latest Request for Review
- PTAB Issues Judgment on Priority in CRISPR Interference
- Parties File Supplemental Priority Statements in CRISPR Interference
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part V: The Goalposts Keep Moving
- Meanwhile, Back at the PTAB with CRISPR – Update
about
Category: Infringement – Literal or DOE
-
By Donald Zuhn — In Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paddock Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit today affirmed a decision by the District Court for the Southern District of New York granting summary judgment of noninfringement to Paddock Laboratories, Inc. with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,908,638. The '638 patent, which is assigned to Duramed, relates…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last week, in Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. – Florida, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District Court for the Southern District of Florida holding that Defendant-Appellee Watson Laboratories, Inc. – Florida did not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,372,252. The Federal Circuit also…
-
By Donald Zuhn — One day after issuing its en banc decision in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., the Federal Circuit decided that the appeal in McKesson Technologies Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp. warrants en banc consideration. In the Court's per curiam order, it noted that the panel that heard the appeal considered…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., decided last Thursday, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a determination by the District Court for the Western District of Michigan that the guaifenesin product described in Defendants-Appellees' ("Perrigo") Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) would not infringe the asserted claims of Plaintiffs-Appellants' ("Adams")…
-
By Andrew Williams — Last week, in Scantibodies Laboratory, Inc. v. Immutopics, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a claim construction decision and corresponding summary judgment of non-infringement rendered by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The patent at issue was U.S. Patent No. 6,689,566 ("the '566 patent"), "Methods, Kits, and…
-
By Donald Zuhn — On March 26, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court for the District of Connecticut that U.S. Patent Nos. 5,328,824 and 5,449,767 are invalid, affirmed the judgment of the District Court that U.S. Patent No. 5,476,928 is anticipated, and affirmed the judgment of the District Court that…
-
Something for Everyone, but the Injunction Stands By Kevin E. Noonan — Amgen has several times successfully defended its erythropoietin (EPO) franchise, the company's first commercial success and in many ways the crown jewel of its (or anyone's) biologics drug pipeline. That string of successes continued today with a decision by the Federal…
-
By Andrew Williams — On Monday, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Amgen, Inc. v. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., dealing another blow to Ariad Pharmaceuticals and U.S. Patent No. 6,410,516, directed to certain aspects of the NF-κB transcription factor pathway. Previously, on April 3, the Federal Circuit held that four of the claims of…
-
By Donald Zuhn — On Monday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding on summary judgment by the District Court for the Northern District of California that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,767,708 and 5,126,270 and certain asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,745 are invalid, and that the remainder of the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit today affirmed AstraZeneca’s latest victory in its long-running battle against generic drug companies who filed ANDAs for its (former) blockbuster drug, Prilosec®. The Court affirmed in toto the decisions of Judge Barbara S. Jones, the District Court judge sitting in the Southern District of New…
Patent Docs 