A Federal Circuit panel on Tuesday vacated its earlier finding that Teva induced infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE40,000, GSK’s patent covering its drug, Coreg®, and set a new round of oral argument for February 23. Back in October, the Court in a 2-1 decision found Teva liable for induced infringement, even though Teva’s original label did not include the indication covered by the ’000 Patent. In its ruling, the Court took issue with Teva’s marketing materials stating that its generic product is an AB rated generic of Coreg tablets without specific reference to any indication. Following the decision, generic drug manufacturers and other interest groups asked the Court to reconsider, arguing that the ruling would impede the availability of low-cost generic drugs to reach the market and would effectively nullify the purpose of the Section viii statement, which allows a generic company to “carve out” any reference to a patented indication from its product’s labeling.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Agrees to Reconsider Ruling in GSK v. Teva Drug Patent Case
Evan Sumner
Contact:Read more about Evan Sumner
Defending Against Nonperformance Of Life Science Contracts
By Bradley Graveline & Evan Sumner on
Posted in Coronavirus, Uncategorized
Many life sciences contracts, including intellectual property licensing agreements, development agreements and supply agreements, contain force majeure clauses. Depending upon the language of these clauses, the COVID-19 pandemic may be an event that triggers these clauses and provides a defense to nonperformance of the contract. Companies that are experiencing difficulties complying with or enforcing compliance with their contracts should carefully examine their contracts to determine if a force majeure clause may excuse performance.
Continue Reading Defending Against Nonperformance Of Life Science Contracts