Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. HEC Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al — Representing Boehringer Ingelheim in a patent infringement suit arising from Defendants’ submissions of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDA”) to the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic versions of Boehringer's Tradjenta® (linagliptin) and Jentadueto® (linagliptin and metformin hydrochloride) tablets for treatment of type II diabetes. Also represented Boehringer in parallel inter partes review proceedings, where, following filing of Patent Owner’s preliminary response, the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) ruled in favor of Boehringer, declining to institute trial, in whole or in part.
Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. — Representing Impax in a patent infringement action arising from Sandoz’s filing of an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of Plaintiff’s Rytary® (Levodopa/Carbidopa) extended-release capsules for treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. — Representing Impax in a patent infringement action arising from Defendants’ filing of an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of Plaintiff’s Rytary® (Levodopa/Carbidopa) extended-release capsules for treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. — Representing Teva in Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation regarding the drug Invega Sustenna® for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.
Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories Fl, Inc. and Actavis Pharma Inc. — Represented Impax in a patent infringement action arising from Defendants’ submissions of an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of Plaintiff’s Rytary® (Levodopa/Carbidopa) extended-release capsules for treatment of Parkinson’s disease. After a 4-day trial, Impax obtained a favorable settlement before the Judge rendered his decision.
Baxter v. Ethicon — Represented Baxter in co-pending ITC Investigation and stayed District Court litigation asserting infringement of Baxter patents covering hemostatic devices and their use in surgery, as embodied by Baxter’s FLOSEAL product. Baxter asserted that Ethicon’s SURGIFLO product — the other product in a two-product market — infringed at least 5 Baxter patents. After a 5-day hearing in the ITC, Baxter obtained a favorable settlement shortly before the ALJ’s Initial Determination was due.
Butamax v. Gevo — Defended Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC against plaintiff Gevo, Inc.'s claims that Butamax's process for producing isobutanol infringed two of Gevo's patents. The judge granted summary judgment in favor of Butamax, holding that Butamax did not infringe Gevo's patents. The judge also invalidated one of the asserted patents on summary judgment for failing to comply with the written description and enablement requirements. Butamax's decisive victories on summary judgment obviated the need for trial.
