Monthly Archives: December 2012

IN RE ROSUVASTATIN CALCIUM PATENT LITIGATION (Astrazeneca UK Limited, et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited et al.)

Posted on December 17, 2012 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2010-1460, etc. NEWMAN, MAYER, PLAGER December 14, 2012 Brief Summary: Successful rebuttal of obvious-to-try argument; inequitable conduct requires “clear and convincing evidence did not show that [applicant] made a deliberate decision to withhold [material] references from the PTO” … Continue reading →

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Inequitable Conduct, Obviousness | Leave a comment

OSRAM SYLVANIA, Inc. v. American Induction Technologies, Inc.

Posted on December 14, 2012 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2012-1091, -1135 O’MALLEY, PLAGER, REYNA December 13, 2012 Brief Summary: A broad genus (e.g., range) may not necessarily anticipate a species where sub-range shown to be critical, or that the claimed method worked differently at different points within … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness | Leave a comment

Pei-Herng Hor, et al. v. Ching-We “Paul” Chu

Posted on December 5, 2012 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2011-1540 NEWMAN, PROST, REYNA November 14, 2013 Brief summary: 35 U.S.C. § 256 cause of action (inventorship dispute) does not arise until the patent issues. Summary: Mr. Hor and Ms. Meng filed suit against Mr. Chu under 35 … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventorship | Leave a comment