The Federal Circuit recently affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court decision holding that Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc.’s (“Actavis’s”) generic Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) product infringed claims of patents owned by Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals (“Nalpropion”) and that the asserted claims were not invalid. The Court found that the district court did not err in finding that Nalpropion’s U.S. Patent No. 8,916,195 (“the ’195 patent”) was not invalid for lack of written description, but that the district court did err in finding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,375,111 (“the ’111 patent”) and 7,462,626 (“the ’626 patent”) were not obvious in view of the prior art.
Recent Posts
- IP News: Barks & Bites for Friday, March 21 | IPWatchdog
- The Outlook for SEPs in 2025: Anti-Suit Injunctions, DOJ Policy and GenAI
- Can State Law Contracts Limit the Right to Repair Even When Patent Protections Exhaust?
- Scarcity or Abundance Mindset? How Scarcity-Minded Leaders Undermine Team Culture and Potential
- ParkerVision v. Rule 36 | Patently Strategic Podcast