Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

IP News

By Compiled by Eric Agovino
March 01, 2006

Federal Circuit Revisits Inequitable Conduct Ruling in OxyContin Case

On Feb. 1, 2006, in response to a petition for rehearing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the opinion in Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharms. Inc., 410, F.3d 690 (Fed Cir. 2005) (affirming trial court's decision that Purdue's patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct), and issued a new opinion. In the new opinion, the Federal Circuit remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

The three patents asserted by Purdue against Endo (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,656,295, 5,508,042, and 5,549,912) are directed to controlled release oxycodone medications for the treatment of moderate to severe pain. The “Detailed Description” section of the written description in each asserted patent begins with the following statement:

It has now been surprisingly discovered that the presently claimed controlled release oxycodone formulations acceptably control pain over a substantially narrower, approximately four-fold (10 to 40 mg every 12 hours ' around-the-clock dosing) in approximately 90% of patients. This is in sharp contrast to the approximately eight-fold range required for approximately 90% of patients for opioid analgesics in general.

Endo filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the FDA in September 2000, seeking approval to make and sell a generic version of Purdue's OxyContin formulation. At the same time, Endo notified Purdue that it had filed a paragraph IV certification asserting that Purdue's patents either would not be infringed by Endo's generic drug or were invalid. Purdue filed a patent infringement suit against Endo in October 2000. After an 11-day bench trial, the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Endo's proposed generic drug products would infringe Purdue's patents. However, the trial court also found that Endo had shown by clear and convincing evidence that Purdue's patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution of the patents. The trial court's determination was based on its finding that Purdue had repeatedly told the PTO that it had discovered the fourfold range for oxycodone while failing to inform the PTO that this discovery was based on “insight” without “scientific proof.”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

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.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.