Source: https://www.robinskaplan.com/resources/newsletters/generically-speaking-hatch-waxman-bulletin/generically-speaking-fall-2013
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 23:17:09+00:00

Document:
Reversing district court decision of summary judgment of non-infringement and granting infringement as a matter of law.
Shipping samples that are covered by the patent-in-suit without a confidentiality agreement, without a limitation on usage, and to a skilled artisan that is able to ascertain the claimed elements, is a public use under § 102(b).
The term "molecular weight" is indefinite because the claims do not indicate which average molecular weight measure is intended, and two different methods were relied on during prosecution to argue against/avoid rejection.
Apotex, Inc. v. UCB, Inc.
"Egregious" misconduct on the part of the inventor—someone who is well versed in pharmaceutical formulations and the patent prosecution and enforcement processes—resulted in the Court's finding of inequitable conduct, laches, and disclaimer.
GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc.
Defendants failed to meet their burden in showing that the asserted claims were invalid for not meeting the written description requirement and non-enablement.
Senju Pharma. Co., LTO v. Lupin Ltd.
Finding that defendants infringe claims 6, 12-16 and that claims 6, 12-16 of the patent-in-suit are invalid for obviousness.
After construing certain disputed claim terms, the court found the asserted claims infringed and not invalid.
Momenta Pharma., Inc. v. Amphastar Pharma., Inc.
Because all of defendant's activity fell under the safe harbor provision, it could not constitute patent infringement.
An action by the FDA during the pendency of the instant actions rendered claims of infringement and the counterclaims asserting non-infringement moot, and the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over counterclaims asserting invalidity.
Par Pharma., Inc. v. TWi Pharma., Inc.
Based on its claim construction, the court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, and because the prior art failed to address the food effect that was the central innovation of the patent-in-suit, summary judgment of invalidity was denied.
Dey, L.P. v. Teva Parental Medicines, Inc.
Plaintiffs' claim construction was adopted because defendants' proposed construction attempted to read a limitation into the claim and defendants could not prove that a construction in a related case had preclusive effect; as a result, court granted summary judgment of infringement.
Teva Pharma. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
Granting motion to dismiss because Defendants' acts were protected by the safe harbor provision of §271(e)(1).

References: § 102
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §271