Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Federal Circuit Rules That Filing an ANDA Is Not Willful Infringement
In Glaxo Group, Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., No. 03-1575, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 15489 (Fed Cir. 2004), the Federal Circuit held that the act of merely filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) could not constitute willful infringement and reversed the attorneys' fees that were awarded by the district court.
Apotex, a generic drug manufacturer, filed an ANDA to receive approval to manufacture the generic version of the drug Ceftin', a patented antibiotic produced by Glaxo. However, Apotex did not begin manufacture of the drug or offer certification that the patent protecting Ceftin' was invalid or non-infringed, as is common in the ANDA application process. The Federal Circuit cited 35 U.S.C '271(e)(2), calling the act of filing an ANDA a “highly artificial act of infringement.” Further, the court noted that the only remedies to a patentee against an ANDA filer were moving the effective date of ANDA approval to a date after the patent expired, obtaining an injunction against the manufacture and use of the drug, and monetary damages only in the event the infringer manufactured or used the drug in the United States. The court stressed that without manufacture of the drug, the only monetary damages it would award were attorneys' fees.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?