Search

The article discusses the legal aspects related to the Hatch-Waxman Act for generic drugs in eastern districts of Virginia. Topics include the Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for generic drugs which requires approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the good speed of trial in the courts of the eastern districts of Virginia as compared to the U.S. District Courts and the Federal Circuit, and experienced judges for patent related cases in eastern Virginia courts.

In Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. 713 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment and found the asserted patent claims obvious in view of the cited prior art. Neither the Federal Circuit nor the District Court addressed the issue of commercial success despite the fact that the patentee had submitted evidence of commercial success in its opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment (but not in support of its own motion for summary judgment). This case report presents the decision of the District Court, the arguments made to the Federal Circuit by the parties and how the Federal Circuit addressed these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Novo Nordisk A/S et al. v. Caraco Pharma. Labs., Ltd. et al., 688 F.3d 766 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit addressed the scope of the injunction issued by the District Court in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd. et al. v. Novo Nordisk A/S et al. (U.S. 2012). The Federal Circuit found that the District Court had abused its discretion in issuing its injunction and modified the injunction accordingly. This case report presents the arguments made to the Federal Circuit by the parties and how the Federal Circuit addressed those issues. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article offers a case report presenting the arguments made at the U.S. District Court and Federal Circuit in In re Brimonidine Patent Litigation, and also discussing how each of these courts addressed the issues raised by the parties. In this case, the Federal Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware's holding that Exela PharmaSci, Inc. literally infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,641,834 and also reversed the District Court's decision.

The article discusses the Aventis v. Lupin Ltd. case in the U.S. The US Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Claims 1,2,4 and 5 of US Patent No.5,061,722 were valid and infringed under the doctrine of equivalents by Lupin Ltd and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s proposed generic version of ramipril capsules. On June 5, 2006, the court issued the ruling on the summary judgment motions and declined to find that Lupin's capsules literally infringed.