Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 MAY 2014

Endo Pharmaceuticals v. Actavis: An Analysis From A Transactional Perspective

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a denial of a preliminary injunction in Endo Pharmaceuticals v. Actavis and Actavis South Atlantic.

United StatesIntellectual Property

On March 31, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a denial of a preliminary injunction in Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis, Inc. and Actavis South Atlantic, LLC, in a decision that underscores the importance of careful drafting and knowledge of the patent landscape in executing patent license agreements.

Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. sells Opana ER, which contains the painkiller called oxymorphone. Actavis, Inc., Actavis South Atlantic, LLC, and Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (collectively the "Defendant-Appellees") attempted to market generic versions of Opana ER. After an initial patent infringement suit between Endo and Actavis, all parties entered into settlement and license agreements. The license agreement between Endo and Roxane, to which the license agreement between Endo and Actavis is similar, dictated that Endo would grant patent licenses for:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from