Pink Sheet is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

Generic Manufacturers Face Uphill Climb After Federal Circuit’s ‘Skinny Label’ Decision

Executive Summary

Split appeals court denies en banc review of GSK v. Teva ruling, but suggests the district court could consider GSK’s patent declarations in determining whether Teva’s label is evidence of inducement to infringe. Teva plans to file petition for Supreme Court review.

You may also be interested in...



Judge Jackson’s Patent, FDA Rulings Show She Is ‘Super Smart’ And Would Be Beneficial For Pharma

Supreme Court nominee issued three decisions on Hatch-Waxman regime as district court judge, including case in which she ruled against the FDA’s denial of orphan drug designation and another in which she deferred to the agency’s view on exclusivity. Her analysis of facts may play a role if the court takes up a case on administrative agency deference.

‘Skinny Label’ Litigation: Generic Firms Rethinking Strategy, May Pursue Legislation

Generic manufacturers are being cautious on label carve-outs to avoid claims of induced infringement. Bright line rules are necessary, attorney says, and if GSK v. Teva decision is not reversed, legislation will be needed to preserve skinny label. Insurers also face potential liability for placement of skinny-label generics on formularies.

Blow For Industry As GSK-Teva ‘Skinny Label’ Decision Upheld

A controversial ruling involving labeling carve-outs that saw Teva hit with $235m in damages over its generic rival to GSK’s Coreg has been upheld after being reheard by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. However, the court sought to counter the suggestion that its decision upends Hatch-Waxman labeling carve-out provisions.

Topics

Related Companies

Latest News
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

PS145696

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel