இணையானது பார்ம் News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Stay updated with breaking news from இணையானது பார்ம். Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.

Top News In இணையானது பார்ம் Today - Breaking & Trending Today

"About" Patent Claim Construction: Par v. Hospira | Harris Beach PLLC

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The use of the word “about” in a patent claim as part of a numeric range might permit the patent holder to preclude competitor formulations falling outside the approximate range, as illustrated in a fairly recent decision
Par Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 835 F. App x 578 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Par sued Hospira for patent infringement after Hospira filed an ANDA seeking to market a generic version of Par’s Adrenalin
® epinephrine injection. At issue was the scope of the patent claim listing the
approximate amounts of tonicity, chelating, and pH lowering agents added to the epinephrine formulation for stability. ....

United States , Teva Pharms , United States Inc , Hospira Inc , Sunovion Pharms Inc , Spharm Inc , Par Pharm , Federal Circuit , Sunovion Pharms , ஒன்றுபட்டது மாநிலங்களில் , தேவா ஃபார்ம்ஸ் , ஒன்றுபட்டது மாநிலங்களில் இன்க் , பார்ம் இன்க் , இணையானது பார்ம் , கூட்டாட்சியின் சுற்று ,

Par Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. | Robins Kaplan LLP

Adrenalin® (epinephrine injection)
Case Name:
Par Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., No. 2020-1273, 2020 WL 6846347 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 23, 2020) (Circuit Judges Dyk, Taranto, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by Taranto, J.) (Appeal from D. Del., Bataillon, J.)
Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Adrenalin® (epinephrine injection); U.S. Patents Nos. 9,119,876 (“the ’876 patent”) and 9,295,657 (“the ’657 patent”)
Nature of Case and Issue(s) Presented: In 2017, Hospira filed an ANDA seeking permission to market a generic version of Par’s Adrenalin® epinephrine injection. Par sued Hospira under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e) alleging that Hospira’s proposed ANDA product infringed the ‘876 and ‘657 patents. Hospira argued that its proposed ANDA product would not meet several limitations of the asserted claims. After a bench trial, the district court found that the ANDA product would infringe the asserted claims. Hospira appealed to the Federal Circuit, and the court a ....

Hospira Inc , Robins Kaplan , Spharm Inc , Par Pharm , Circuit Judges Dyk , Federal Circuit , Par Prevailed , ராபின்ஸ் கபிலன் , பார்ம் இன்க் , இணையானது பார்ம் , சுற்று நீதிபதிகள் டய்க் , கூட்டாட்சியின் சுற்று ,