Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Reverse Payments to Generic Drug Manufacturers

FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
By Suzanne Van Arsdale – Edited by Jennifer Wong

On Monday, March 25, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., to determine the legality, under antitrust laws, of patent litigation settlements made by the maker of a brand-name drug to the maker of a generic competitor to keep the generic off the market temporarily, known as a “reverse payment agreement” or “pay for delay.”

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Kathleen McGuinness

Supreme Court of Canada Rules That Text Message Monitoring Requires Warrant

Google Announces Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge

Legal Challenges to “Stingray” Surveillance Devices Continue to Grow

BASF Loses Pesticide Patent Appeal Due to Prosecution Disclaimer Doctrine

BASF v. Makhteshim Agan
By David LeRay – Edited by Ashish Bakshi

BASF Agro B.V. (“BASF”), the world’s largest chemical manufacturer, suffered a setback in its patent litigation against Makhteshim Agan of North America (“Makhteshim”), the world’s largest generic agrochemical maker.The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Middle District of North Carolina’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement for the defendants.

Uncertain Trajectory of the Rocket Docket in Patent Appeals

By Alex Shank – Edited by Michael Hoven

Patent litigators, enticed by the “Rocket Docket” EDVA and its recently relaxed evidentiary standards, may spur a spike in granted patents, compounding the defects of already over-patented system. However, other AIA reforms, including expanded post-grant review and the opening of PTO satellite offices, as well as PTO appeals of EDVA decisions, will likely temper the spike. Ultimately, opening the EDVA may figure most prominently in heightening the scrutiny of potentially cursory PTO examiner decisions.

Federal Circuit Reverses Equitable Estoppel Involving Continuation-in-Part Patent

Radio Systems Corp. v. Lalor
By Craig Fratrik – Edited by Kathleen McGuinness

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the decision of the Western District of Washington, which had ruled that Tom Lalor and Bumper Boy (“Bumper Boy”) were barred under equitable estoppel from bringing certain patent infringement claims and that none of Radio Systems’ other designs were infringing.