Monthly Archives: December 2012

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

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.

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

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