comparemela.com

Latest Breaking News On - Judge stanley chesler - Page 1 : comparemela.com

Other Barks and Bites for Friday, June 15: U S Chamber Calls Out Senator Sanders for Abuse of Power, USPTO Creates Process to De-Designate Precedential PTAB Decisions, and Roche Sues Indian Sellers of Expired Accu-Chek Devices

This week in Other Barks and Bites: the D.C. Court of Appeals finds that the Administrative Procedures Act waives sovereign immunity in the context of copyright rule promulgation; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce calls out Bernie Sanders for abusive subpoenas targeting a pharmaceutical executive at Novo Nordisk; and more.

New Jersey woman admits role in $25M securities fraud scheme

An Essex County woman admitted her role in a securities scheme that fraudulently induced victims to invest $25+ million in cash and crypto.

NJ Judge Scraps Claims In 2 Horizon Drug Patents

A federal judge in New Jersey has ruled that claims in two Horizon Pharma patents that cover the arthritis drug Vimovo never should have been issued in the first place, sinking an infringement suit against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories that had been rattling around for half a decade.

Federal Circuit Reaffirms That There Is No Reasonable Expectation Of Success In Trying To Invalidate A Chemical Compound Claim As Obvious | Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: The Federal Circuit (in an unpublished opinion) recently reaffirmed the difficulty generic challengers face when trying to establish chemical structural obviousness to invalidate a drug compound patent claim. 1 This recent ruling involved Takeda’s U.S. Patent No. 7,807,689 (“the ‘689 Patent”), which claims alogliptin, a uracil-containing dipeptidyl peptidase IV (“DPP-IV”) inhibitor used to treat Type II diabetes. The ‘689 Patent is listed in the Orange Book for Takeda’s anti-diabetes drug products, Nesina ®, Kazano ®, and Oseni ®, each of which contains alogliptin benzoate as an active ingredient. Two ANDA applicants, Torrent and Indoco, challenged the validity of claims 4 and 12 of the ‘689 Patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and for non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting (“OTDP”).

© 2025 Vimarsana

vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.