providing a solid oral controlled release dosage form, comprising: (a) administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to a subject having said immune-mediated gastrointes- tinal disorder andĪ. A method for treating a patient with iloperidone, wherein the patient is suffering from schizophrenia, the method comprising the steps of: A method of treating pain in a renally impaired patient, comprising the steps of:ġ. A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising:ġ. Vanda’s claim is shown side-by-side with claims from Mayo and Vanda below (with emphasis added): Mayo, U.S. Interestingly, then, the issue turns on how the ’737 claims are construed, even though the district court never construed the claims. West-ward Pharmaceuticals Int’l Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117 (2018), which the Federal Circuit found subject-matter eligible on April 13, 2018, in the midst of the briefing for the Endo v. In contrast, Endo’s briefing urged that the ’737 claims were indistinguishable from the claims in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., v. In Teva’s brief, it urged that the ’737 claims were indistinguishable from the claims the Supreme Court held subject-matter ineligible in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Then, an altered dosage of the drug is administered. First, a kidney function test is performed. The subject matter of the ’737 patent is a method of treating pain in a renally impaired patient. The alleged factual disputes related to whether certain elements of the claim were known or conventional. Regarding process, Endo argued that factual disputes precluded dismissal based on the pleadings alone. With regard to substance, Endo argued that the ’737 claims were patent eligible as they are directed to a patent-eligible method of treatment. In its briefs, Endo argued that the district court was wrong on the substance and wrong on the process. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Actavis Pharma, Inc., defended the propriety of the district court’s dismissal. Patent 8,808,737 (’737) is invalid for lack of patent-eligible subject matter under § 101. In an appeal argued December 6, 2018, at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under docket numbers 17-1240, -1455, and -1887, Endo challenged the district court’s partial dismissal of the case based on its opinion that U.S. The suits have been consolidated in various permutations related to different defendants and different patents at issue. Teva: Courts Continue to Invalidate Patent ClaimsĮndo Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Mallinckrodt LLC sued for patent infringement against multiple defendants who had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) to market generic versions of Endo’s Opana® ER products (extended release oxymorphone).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |