Welsh & Katz Client, Apotex, Inc., Prevails as U.S. Supreme Court Turns Down Pfizer’s Request

Welsh & Katz client, Apotex, Inc., received a major victory in its ongoing legal battle with Pfizer today when the U.S. Supreme Court turned down Pfizer’s request for a writ of certiorari. The Court’s decision means the ruling in Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc. 2006-1261 on the issue of obviousness continues to stand as a precedent to be used in future pharmaceutical cases.

“The Court’s refusal to reconsider the Federal Circuit decision is a defeat for Pfizer’s attempt to overturn the Federal Circuit’s precedent decision in Pfizer v. Apotex,” explains Robert B. Breisblatt, a principal with Welsh & Katz and Apotex’s lead trial lawyer in the Pfizer case.

“It’s clear that Pfizer’s efforts to overturn this case were not focused solely on its Norvasc drug, which no longer had patent protection,” Breisblatt explains. “Its intent was to remove this decision so that the ruling couldn’t be used in future pharmaceutical patent disputes,” he says.

Welsh & Katz already has successfully applied the ruling on obviousness in another case for Apotex. In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc. et al. (06-1564) that Daiichi Sankyo Co.’s patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,401,741) covering a method for treating bacterial ear infections by topically administering the antibiotic ofloxacin into the ear was invalid for obviousness. The Court’s decision, which was reissued as a precedential decision on September 12, 2007, reversed a lower court ruling that had upheld Daiichi’s patent.

In addition to Mr. Breisblatt, Apotex was represented in the Supreme Court by Steven Feldman from Welsh & Katz and Lawrence Rosenthal of Chapman University School of Law.

Welsh & Katz, Ltd. is a full-service intellectual property law firm known for its impressive track record of success and the breadth of its international practice. The Firm focuses on obtaining patents, trademarks and copyrights; intellectual property litigation; protecting trade secrets; product anti-counterfeiting; clearance opinions; and licensing transactions.

Article Source: http://www.share.onlypunjab.com

For more information, please visit WWW.WELSHKATZ.COM.

Please Rate this Article

5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 

Not yet Rated