Law360
Defending ‘Salt’ Patents In Hatch-Waxman Cases
December 1, 2015
After Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007), reh’g denied, 488 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Norvasc decision”), there was an apparent drop in cases involving salt patents, i.e., which claim a particular salt form of a drug. However, several recent cases have upheld salt patents, and this article will discuss potential responses to some common challenges, namely a Petering anticipation challenge, and a KSR obvious-to-try challenge.
得意分野
Suggested News & Insights
Nat Love to Speak at 2026 Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) Bench & Bar® ConferenceThursday, June 18, 2026Nathaniel Love Named Chair of Chicago Pro Bono CommitteeJune 9, 2026When “The Devil Made Me Do It” Is Not a Defense: Lessons in AI Governance and Organizational Oversight from an SDNY DecisionJune 4, 2026Sidley Elects New Partnership Class of 52June 1, 2026The AI Patent Litigation War Hasn’t Started—But It’s Coming FastMay 21, 2026When “The Devil Made Me Do It” Is Not a Defense: Lessons in AI Governance and Organizational Oversight from an SDNY DecisionMay 11, 2026
- Stay Up To DateSubscribe to Sidley Publications
- Follow Sidley on Social MediaSocial Media Directory