Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
Chief information officers still bear the brunt of cybersecurity worries at many companies. But a study by the Association of Corporate Counsel Foundation finds that chief legal officers are increasingly taking a leadership role in cybersecurity strategy.
General counsel are eager to tap the promise of generative AI. But without clear technology road maps, many legal departments are struggling to turn that interest into action.
Part Two of this two-part articleexamines practical steps marketers must take to succeed in this changing landscape by embracing a multichannel, AI-driven approach to their marketing and PR efforts. This means rethinking your strategy to build direct connections with your audience, using platforms that elevate your visibility and focusing on storytelling that resonates.
When the SEC issues the next annual enforcement report for fiscal year 2025, we expect securities offering actions and investment adviser actions will almost certainly be up, and the “crypto” and “cyber” cases will almost certainly be down. Public statements by the new SEC administration have said as much, but even more telling than public statements are the allocation of limited enforcement resources.
The VPPA may be nearly four-decades old and video-rental stores largely a thing of the past, but the rise of online content, streaming services and ancillary activities has brought with it frequent litigation based on the VPPA. The key challenge in these litigations is how to interpret the VPPA’s 1980s terms in light of today’s digital advances.