OBB Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to subscribe to the Orange Book Blog newsletter. If a new post is added during the day, you'll receive it by e-mail the next morning.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

OBB RSS Feed

  •  

Disclaimer

  • Orange Book Blog is published for informational purposes only; it contains no legal advice whatsoever. Publication of Orange Book Blog does not create an attorney-client relationship. Orange Book Blog is Aaron Barkoff's personal website and it is intended for other attorneys. Orange Book Blog is not edited by McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. ("MHM") or its clients. No part of Orange Book Blog--whether information, commentary, or other--may be attributed to MHM or its clients. MHM represents many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and therefore Orange Book Blog may occasionally report on news that relates to MHM clients. Orange Book Blog will always strive to be unbiased. All information on Orange Book Blog should be double-checked for its accuracy and current applicability. -- © Aaron F. Barkoff 2006-2017

« Federal Circuit Denies Pfizer's Petition for Rehearing in Norvasc Case | Main | Solicitor General Recommends Supreme Court Deny Certiorari in Tamoxifen "Reverse Payments" Case »

May 23, 2007

Comments

Sandeep

Dear Aaron,

It seems that it seems that I can downlaod the merck Apotex ruling from your link.
I will appreciate if you could email it me at :
sandeep[dot]rathod[at]matrixlabsindia[dot]com

Also, I have given you some information on Pantoprazole/ Protonix Hatch Waxman litigation to your tracker blog post. Do add it.

Sincere regards,
SKR

Sean

It appears that the link to the opinion is dead.

Aaron

Thanks for letting me know. I fixed the link.

Ted

Apotex's argument that the 30-month stay is not terminated upon dismissal of this case is a red-herring; nothing short of an excuse to assert an Antitrust cause of action. Obviously, they could have simply asked the court to "shorten" the 30-month stay. Courts have authority to shorten or terminate the 30-month stay when appropriate. The 30-month stay is intended as a stay during litigation; when no litigation is anticipated, the court is vested with authority to termintae the stay. Merck could also have simply stipulated to have the 30-month stay terminated in order to obviate this issue.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)