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




  • 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

« ACI "Paragraph IV Disputes" Conference, New York City, April 30-May 1 | Main | Apotex Sues FDA to Recover 180-Day Exclusivity on Generic Plavix »

April 24, 2008




I note that the actual judgment does not mention Caraco case.
It only limits to Medimmune and Teva/ Novartis.

I wonder whether it would have been prudent for Impax to wait for a few more days till such time as Medicis reverted back rather than jumping the gun to file the DJ within 4 days of Medicis' answer.



Thanks for your comment.

Although the decision doesn't cite the Caraco v. Forest case, the court was aware of it. Medicis filed a copy of the decision with the district court on April 3rd.

I'm not sure it would've helped Impax to wait a few more days. They simply don't have the same kind of injury that was alleged in Teva v. Novartis and Caraco v. Forest.


The comments to this entry are closed.