In late September, Corcept Therapeutics finally went to trial against Teva in the parties’ long-running patent dispute over Teva’s prospective generic for Korlym. The Hatch-Waxman litigation between the two companies has been waging since 2018. Numerous patents have come in and out of the case over that time. Yet, by the time of the trial a few weeks ago, Corcept had narrowed its case down to alleging Teva’s infringement of only two patents: U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214 and 10,842,800. The parties’ post-trial brief have been filed. What do they say?
Read MoreBad 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 MoreI previously blogged about the surprising case, GlaxoKlineSmith v. Teva (GSK), where the Federal Circuit held that a generic pharmaceutical company can, under the right circumstances, be liable for inducing infringement of a method-of-use pharmaceutical patent despite carving out the patented indication from its label. The decision at first spooked the generic pharmaceutical industry, but was then followed by two additional opinions—one related to a panel rehearing, followed by another one, which issued on February 11, 2022, denying a hearing en banc, which included a fiery dissent. These decisions show clear disagreements among the Judges at the Federal Circuit. What is at the heart of this dispute?
Read MoreToday, the Federal Circuit issued an important precedential decision for induced infringement. The case, Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., Case No. 2016-2599 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19, 2018), indicates that defendants that manufacture and sell components abroad cannot so easily evade induced infringement by claiming ignorance that their products end up within the U.S. market.
Read More