Posts Tagged: Hospira


CAFC Affirms District Court Finding that Hospira Precedex Patent Claim is Obvious

On January 9, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, holding …
By Nancy Braman
2 years ago 0

Federal Circuit Upholds $70 Million Judgment for Amgen in Epogen Biosimilar Case

Yesterday, in an opinion authored by Judge Moore, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the District of Delaware’s decision that: 1) U.S. …
By Nancy Braman
2 years ago 0

Hospira Patent Claims that Previously Survived IPR Held Invalid

While the claims-in-suit had previously survived validity challenges in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and in a District …
By Steve Brachmann
3 years ago 0

CAFC denies Amgen discovery in biosimilar patent dispute

In a patent infringement case governed by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), the Federal Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction to compel discovery …

No On-Sale Bar From Manufacturing Agreement Without An Actual Sale of the Invention

The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, unanimously reversed the prior panel, holding that MedCo was not barred from seeking its patents due to a commercial sale under § 102(…

Certificate of Correction Changing a Chemical Structure Does Not Affect Validity of Patent

The sole modification in the figure amended was to change one of the 13 amino acids in the structure of daptomycin from an L-stereoisomer to a D-stereoisomer of …

Whether Person of Ordinary Skill Would Add Vent to Disinfecting Cap is Genuine Dispute

The Federal Circuit disagreed, holding that “record evidence establishe[d] a genuine dispute over whether a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add a …

Federal Circuit Review – Issue 58 – July 10, 2015

In this issue of the Federal Circuit Review: (1) Damages for Lost Profits May Not Be Based On Extraterritorial Services Performed by an Infringer’s Customers Under § 271(f); (2) …