Source: https://www.robinskaplan.com/resources/newsletters/generically-speaking-hatch-waxman-bulletin/generically-speaking-fall-2016
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:22:35+00:00

Document:
Taking on an ANDA patent litigation requires significant corporate resources, time, and money. Staying on top of industry news and outcomes, following trends in the judiciary and the steps others are taking, and keeping informed of recently-enacted rules and legislation are critical.
The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc.
On-sale bar is not triggered by production of drug by third party, even if that drug is stockpiled and later sold.
Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc.
Issue and claim preclusion do not apply when (i) the court issues a new claim construction; and (ii) the defendant has engaged in a section viii carve out in its proposed ANDA label.
Reanalyzing clinical data to identify patentable information and filing patent applications as well as making and selling a drug with a revised label reflecting the information derived from that clinical study falls into the § 271(e)(1) safe harbor provision and does not infringe as a matter of law.
A patent-term extension of a continuation does not violate 35 U.S.C. § 156 because a patentee can extend the term for one chosen patent.
Relying on the Federal Circuit’s likelihood-of-success standard for awarding preliminary injunctions, the district court preliminary enjoined defendants from infringing the patent-in-suit.
FDA’s prior practice of refusing to grant five-year exclusivity to fixed-combination drug products containing a novel active drug substance was arbitrary and capricious.
Sanofi v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc.
Based on Defendants’ proposed ANDA labels, the court found Defendants liable for induced infringement; the claims were not invalid as obvious.
A patent is obvious in view of the knowledge of one of skill in the art to disclose the gaps not inherently disclosed in the primary reference.
Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc.
The court rejected defendant’s obviousness defense, finding fault with its lead-compound analysis and probative evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness; the court also found the asserted claims infringed directly and by inducement, but found no contributory infringement.
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Perrigo Co.
Two of plaintiff’s patents relating to the formulation and application of axillary transdermal testosterone were invalid while a third patent was valid and infringed by one of the joint defendants.
Horizon Pharma Ireland Ltd. v. Actavis Labs., UT, Inc.
All of the proposed terms for construction are indefinite.
UCB, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc.
After stipulating to infringement, the court addressed and rejected various arguments that the asserted claims were invalid.
Given the recent Supreme Court decisions concerning jurisdiction, general jurisdiction over branded drug company does not exist because branded company defends itself in prior litigation, and specific jurisdiction is not present when the branded drug company has limited contacts with the forum.
Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Mutual Pharm. Co., Inc.
An exceptional case finding is not supported when there was a genuine issue regarding how to test to determine if a claim element is present.
GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
GSK adequately pled a claim of induced infringement alleging facts concerning ways in which Teva actively promoted its generic product and the content of Teva’s skinny label.
Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Labs., Inc.
Subsequent patent teaching a formulation of specific dosage amounts was not invalid for general or double-patenting obviousness when the specific dosages produced unexpected results contrary to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time of patenting.
Forest Labs. Holdings Ltd. v. Mylan Inc.
A label that states that patients may use a dosing schedule that differs from the label’s proposed schedule does not create a defense to induced infringement.
The FDA’s interpretation of the statutory language determining when an NDA is “initially submitted” is due deference, is reasonable, is consistent, and is not arbitrary or capricious.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 271
 § 156
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.