Tagged as: Litigation

Sanofi/Regeneron Move for Summary Judgment of Invalidity in Dupixent® Patent Litigation

Last week, in the ongoing Immunex v. Sanofi patent litigation regarding Immunex’s claims of infringement against Sanofi and Regeneron’s Dupixent® (dupilumab) product, the Defendants moved for summary judgment of invalidity of the sole patent-in-suit, the ‘487 patent, on the ground that the patent’s claims are indefinite. According to Defendants’ brief,…

Read More

New BPCIA Litigations Regarding Celltrion's Trastuzumab and Rituximab Biosimilars

On January 11, 2018, Celltrion and Teva filed two lawsuits against Genentech in the District Court for the Northern District of California.  Case No. 3:18-cv-00274 relates to Celltrion’s Herzuma®, its trastuzumab biosimilar. According to the complaint, Celltrion and Teva seek a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and/or unenforceability of 38…

Read More

CD Cal Stays Dismissal of Amgen DJ Complaint Pending Delaware Decision on Genentech’s Motion to Transfer in MVASI® litigation

As we previously reported, on October 6, 2017, Amgen and Genentech filed separate lawsuits regarding Amgen’s bevacizumab biosimilar (MVASI®), with Amgen filing for declaratory judgment in C.D. Cal. of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of 27 patents, and Genentech filing a complaint for infringement of 24 patents in Delaware and a…

Read More

Janssen v. Celltrion: Motions to Exclude or Limit Evidence and Testimony from the Upcoming Trial

With the pre-trial conference set to begin on February 6, 2017, the parties in Janssen v. Celltrion have filed several motions seeking to exclude or limit certain evidence and testimony that may be offered at trial. Expert Testimony Celltrion has filed a motion to exclude the opinions of Janssen’s proffered expert…

Read More

Janssen v. Celltrion: Janssen Appeals Judgment Invalidating the ’471 Patent

As we previously reported, on September 26, 2016, the district court in Janssen v. Celltrion entered partial final judgment that the ’471 patent, asserted by Janssen, was invalid.  Today, Janssen filed a notice that they are appealing the district court’s judgment to the Federal Circuit. Meanwhile, Celltrion’s partner Pfizer announced last week that it will begin shipping…

Read More

BPCIA Litigation Updates: Amgen v. Apotex, Immunex v. Sandoz, Janssen v. Celltrion

A few BPCIA litigation updates to wrap up the week for our readers, looking ahead to next week: The Federal Circuit issued its formal mandate in Amgen v. Apotex yesterday.  With the issuance of the formal mandate, the Federal Circuit has officially ordered that its July  opinion in the case must now be…

Read More

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc.: the U.S. Supreme Court Establishes a New Framework for Awarding Enhanced Damages in Patent Suits

Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Halo Electronics, decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v Pulse Electronics, Inc., in which the Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s Seagate test and established a new framework for imposing enhanced damages for patent infringement.  Under the new framework, district courts will have greater…

Read More