Nanocrystalline pharmaceutical patent litigation: The first case

Nanotechnology Law and Business

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 157-162

  Prendergast, William F ^a,b   Schafer, Heather N ^a  

^a Brinks Hofer Gilson and Lione ^*

^b Nanotechnology Practice Group

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALBUMIN NANOPARTICLES; CANCER THERAPIES; PATENT LITIGATION; PRODUCT SUCCESS;

CHEMOTHERAPY; COMPUTER NETWORKS; DRUG PRODUCTS; DRUG THERAPY; HEALTH CARE; NANOPARTICLES; NANOSTRUCTURES; NANOTECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY;

NANOSTRUCTURED MATERIALS;

EID: 51249101525     PISSN: 15462080     EISSN: 15462080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Elan Pharma. Int'l, Ltd. v. Abraxis Biosci., Inc., No. 06-438 (D. Del. filed July 19, 2006), at Complaint at 3.
2. Id. at Minute Entry of Nov. 6, 2006.
3. See Howard Lovy, A Spoonful of Nano Helps the Medicine Go Down: FDA Approves Hybrid Protein-Nanoparticle Anticancer Drug, THE SCIENTIST, Mar. 28, 2005, at 35.
4. Michael J. Hawkins, Patrick Soon-Shiong & Neil Desai, Protein Nanoparticles as Drug Carriers in Clinical Medicine, 60 DRUG DELIVERY REV. 876, 877 (2008).
5. See supra note 3.
6. See supra note 4 at 878.
7. See id.
8. Id.
9. Charity D. Scripture, William D. Figg & Alex Sparreboom, Paclitaxel Chemotherapy: From Empiricism to a Mechanism-Based Formulation Strategy, 1 THERAPEUTICS & CLINICAL RISK MGMT. 107, 107-08 (2005), available at http://www.pubmedcentral. nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1661618&blobtype=pdf.
10. See id at 108-09.
11. See supra note 4 at 877.
12. See id.
13. See id.
14. See id.
15. See id at 877-88.
16. See supra note 1 at Answer and Countercl., Aug. 22, 2006.
17. See id.
18. See supra note 16.
19. See supra note 1.
20. See id.
21. U.S. Patent No. 5,399,363 (issued Mar. 21, 1995).
22. Id. at col. 14, ll: 7-11.
23. U.S. Patent No. 5,834,025 (issued Nov. 10, 1998).
24. Id. at col. 16, ll: 56-60.
25. See supra note 1 at Complaint at 5.
26. See supra note 17.
27. See supra note 1 at Am. Answer (Redacted) at ¶ 33, Apr. 6, 2007.
28. See id.
29. See id at Defs.'s Mot. for Sanctions, Mar. 20, 2007. Crystalline solids are arranged in fixed geometric patterns or lattices; they have orderly arranged units, and show definite melting points. Amorphous solids are solids with random, unoriented molecules that do not have definite melting points.
30. See Univ. of Tenn., http://www.utmem.edu/physpharm/.038.html (last visited May 14, 2008).
31. See supra note 1 at PL's Answer Brief, in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Sanctions.
32. See id.
33. See id.
34. See id.
35. See supra note 30.
36. See supra note 1 at Teleph. Conf. before Hon. Gregory M. Sleet, (attached as Ex. C to Def.'s Mot. for Sanctions) p. 5, 11: 17-21.
37. See supra note 30.
38. See supra note 30.
39. See supra note 30.
40. See supra note 31 at 22.
41. See id.
42. See id.
43. See supra note 1 at Order Den. Def.'s Mot. for Sanctions, Sept. 25, 2007.
44. See supra note 1 at Elan's Letter Req. Permission to File and Br. Mot. for Summ. J. (Redacted), Jan. 2, 2008.
45. See supra note 1 at Elan's Letter Req. Permission to File and Br. Mot. for Summ. J. (Redacted), Jan. 2, 2008.
46. See id.
47. Order (May 19, 2008), Elan Pharma. Int'l, Ltd. v. Abraxis Biosci., Inc., No. 06-438 (D. Del. filed July 19, 2006).
48. Id.
49. Elan's Motion for Reconsideration, Filed May 22, 2008.
50. Order of May 21, 2008.
51. Sara Stefanini, Judges Top Four Pet Peeves In Patent Litigation, IP LAW 360, May 13, 2008 ('"Generally in these cases, both parties have experts who are ready, willing and able to come to court and dispute the facts,' said Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the U.S. District Court in Delaware. 'It can be a significant waste of time and money to bring a summary judgment motion.' ").