Chinta, Perdomo, Berks and Fratangelo LLP

Obviousness in prodrugs — Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Mylan

The drug was olmesartan, similar in structure to losartan. Mylan filed ANDA’s w/ PIV certs challenging the olmesartan patents as obvious in view of losartan. The issue in front of the Federal Circuit panel was whether claim 13 of the...

Read More

Donepezil: Teva has standing in declaratory judgement action that it doesn’t infringe listed patents

Teva Pharms. USA Inc. v. Eisai Co., Ltd., No. 2009-1593 (Fed. Cir. 10/6/2010). Ranbaxy was first-filer (pre-MMA) for donepezil of an ANDA with a "paragraph IV" certification, and Teva was a subsequent filer with a paragraph IV certification. Teva obtained...

Read More

Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.

No. 2010-1246 (Fed. Cir. 8/5/2010) (Linn, Moore, Friedman, opinion by Moore).This case highlights several important issues in an ANDA litigation. Background Adams owns the '252 patent for controlled release guaifenesin. Adams markets Mucinex® which is the preferred embodiment of the...

Read More

Obviousness upheld: Purdue Pharma Products L.P. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.

No. 2009-1553 (Fed. Cir. 6/3/2010) (non precedential). Par filed an ANDA for once daily tramadol, with PIV cert’s against two patents.  Purdue sued, and Par counterclaimed that the patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of enablement...

Read More

Inequitable Conduct: Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Universal Security Instruments, Inc.

No. 2009-1421 (Fed. Cir. 5/28/2010). Leviton filed several patent applications (that matured to granted patents) in 1999 and 2003 (“Germain application”) with nearly identical and in some cases identical claims. The 1999 and Germain application families were unrelated by priority...

Read More

Vizio, Inc. v. ITC

No. 2009-1386 (Fed. Cir. 5/26/2010).  Funai owns the '974 patent that improves "channel latency," a delay in digital TV decoders while data is received. Funai brought an action at the ITC alleging that defendants imported infringing TV's.  The ITC concluded...

Read More

Aspex Eyewear Inc. v. Clariti Eyewear, Inc.

In Aspex Eyewear Inc. v. Clariti Eyewear, Inc., No. 2009-1147 (Fed. Cir. 5/24/2010), Aspex sent Clariti several letters in 2003 alleging infringement of Aspex patents pertaining to eyewear. The last letter from Clariti was sent in June, 2003. Aspex then...

Read More

Federal Circuit News

Judge Michel (retiring May 31, 2010) posted his state of the court address, which is very interesting. Anyone interested in IP law should read these comments.  Judge Michel will fully retire (i.e., not go on senior status) and work for...

Read More

Orion IP, LLC. v. Hyundai Motor Co.

U.S. Patent No. 5,367,627 is drawn to a computerized method for selecting parts, for example in an auto shop for selecting parts for repairs.  Orion IP, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co., No. 2009-1130 (Fed. Cir. 5/17/2010). The patentee alleged that...

Read More

Standing to sue: Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research v. Cochlear Corp.

In Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research v. Cochlear Corp., No. 2009-1447 (Fed. Cir. 5/14/2010) the issue was whether a patent licensor had standing to sue.  The Mann Foundation (AMF) licensed US 5609616 and US5938691, both pertaining to cochlear...

Read More