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
When “The Devil Made Me Do It” Is Not a Defense: Lessons in AI Governance and Organizational Oversight from an SDNY DecisionMay 11, 2026Sidley Represents Apollo on its Strategic Investment in vVARDISApril 30, 2026AI and Patent Law: Navigating a Changing LandscapeWednesday, April 15, 2026Sidley Represents AIP in Its US$1.272 Billion Acquisition of Avanos MedicalApril 14, 2026Sidley Wins Three Awards at the Managing IP Americas Awards 2026April 10, 2026Nineteen Sidley Lawyers Named Finalists for the Women in Business Law Americas Awards 2026April 2, 2026
- Stay Up To DateSubscribe to Sidley Publications
- Follow Sidley on Social MediaSocial Media Directory