Photocure ASA v. Kappos, No. 09-1393, concerned a challenge to the district court's holding that the PTO's denial of petitioner's request for a term extension of a drug product having as its active ingredient the chemical compound, MAL hydrochloride, was not in accordance with law and that the patent on MAL hydrochloride is subject to term extension. In affirming the judgment the court held that the district court correctly applied 35 U.S.C. section 156 to extend the term of the patented product that is subject to regulatory review.
Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Lupin Pharm., Inc., No. 09-1362, concerned a challenge to the district court's judgment sustaining the extension of the term of a patent, directed to an enantiomer of a racemic compound that had previously been approved by the FDA, and an order enjoining defendant from infringement during the extended term of the patent. In affirming the judgment, the court held that the district court correctly ruled that a patent on levofloxacin was properly granted the statutory term extension, for the enantiomer is a different drug product from the racemate ofloxacin, and was subject to regulatory approval before it could be commercially marketed and used. Furthermore, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing an injunction commensurate with the patent rights of exclusion.
Patent Rights Prot. Group, LLC v. Video Gaming Tech., Inc., No.09-1391, involved a plaintiff's patent infringement suit, relating to various types of casino-style gaming machines against multiple defendants. In holding that the district court erred in declining to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants solely on the basis of reasonableness, and that the court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery, district court's entry of judgment in favor of the defendants is vacated and remanded.
- Full text of Photocure ASA v. Kappos
- Full text of Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Lupin Pharm., Inc
- Full text of Patent Rights Prot. Group, LLC v. Video Gaming Tech., Inc