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

« Federal Circuit Upholds Patent Term Extensions in LEVAQUIN and METVIXIA Cases | Main | D.C. District Court Sides With FDA/Hospira/Teva, Against Sanofi-Aventis, in Eloxatin Case »

July 21, 2010



This case presents largely the same issues as in Merck v Apotex on Fosamax back in 2007. That was under the older version of the statute though. But the Constitution has not changed since then.

The comments to this entry are closed.