Remove companies lupin-ltd
article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Affirms Skinny Label Carve Outs

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Lupin Ltd., 2022-1194, 2022-1208, and 2022-1246 (December 7, 2023) , the Federal Circuit held that generic pharmaceutical companies may continue to use skinny labels to avoid infringement of method of treatment claims as long as they do not engage in advertising or promotional activities that encourage infringement of the patents.

article thumbnail

Federal Circuit affirms district court finding of no induced or contributory infringement of generic depression drug

JD Supra Law

Lundbeck A/S (“Lundbeck”) and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., collectively “Takeda”) appealed a District of Delaware ruling that several generic pharmaceutical company defendants’ Abbreviated New Drug Applications would not infringe its U.S. Lundbeck A-S v. 2022-1194 (Fed. December 7, 2023), Plaintiffs, H.

Patent 100
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Affirms Skinny Label Carve Outs

JD Supra Law

Lupin Ltd., 2022-1194, 2022-1208, and 2022-1246 (December 7, 2023), the Federal Circuit held that generic pharmaceutical companies may continue to use skinny labels to avoid infringement of method of treatment claims as long as they do not engage in advertising or promotional activities that encourage infringement of the patents.

article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Affirms Skinny Label Carve Outs

LexBlog IP

Lupin Ltd., 2022-1194, 2022-1208, and 2022-1246 (December 7, 2023) , the Federal Circuit held that generic pharmaceutical companies may continue to use skinny labels to avoid infringement of method of treatment claims as long as they do not engage in advertising or promotional activities that encourage infringement of the patents.

article thumbnail

Skinny Label Avoids Infringement

Patently-O

Lupin Ltd. , ” Overall, the court ruling places a hard stop against a potential form of evergreening that brand drug companies could have used to prevent generic entry through method-of-use patents obtained later in a drug’s lifecycle. by Dennis Crouch H. Lundbeck A/S v. 2022-1194, 2022-1208, 2022-1246 (Fed.

Patent 125
article thumbnail

When is the use of a product a “substantial noninfringing use” for purposes of Section 271(c)?

Patently-O

Assume also that the company selling the software doesn’t provide specific instructions on how to use the five features, thus taking potential liability outside the realm of § 271(b). Alkem Lab’ys Ltd., Int’l Ltd. , In a recent post , Dennis pointed out that in H. Lundbeck A/S v. See also Grunenthal GMBH v.

Patent 44
article thumbnail

RPG Enterprises v. Riju Ghoshal: Bombay High Court looks at Sections 29(4) and 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act

SpicyIP

Citing Lupin Ltd. To arrive at this conclusion, the Single Judge Bench relied on to a full bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Cipla Ltd. Ltd (See also SpicyIP post here ). This provision will bring this clause in harmony with the proposed amendments to Sections 20 and 22 of the Companies Act, 1956.”