Bad facts make bad law. The case of GlaxoSmithKline’s lawsuit over Teva’s generic Coreg® drug is a case-in-point. I previously blogged about the case here and here. Given that the Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari, we’re now stuck with Federal Circuit precedent holding that a generic can still face liability for induced infringement of a method-of-use patent covering a section viii carved-out indication. What will be the consequences of this?
Read MoreJust when you think the Amarin saga to keep out generic competition is over, something else happens. In the latest development, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in an unrelated case (GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva) that suggests that a generic could potentially be liable for inducing infringement of a patented indication, even though that indication has been carved out of the generic’s label. Will this decision benefit Amarin?
Read MoreEarlier this year, in October, the Federal Circuit vacated Amgen’s hard-earned injunction against Praluent®, the only other PCSK9 drug competing with its own, Repatha®. The case has been remanded to the District Court of Delaware for a new trial on the validity of Amgen’s patents. Before that could happen, however, earlier this week Amgen petitioned the Federal Circuit for en banc review of its October 5, 2017 decision that cut against Amgen. What are Amgen's chances?
Read More