Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis, Inc.
Addressing the issue of implied license, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a lower
court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that
defendant did not have an implied license to practice the asserted
patents, because none of the asserted patents was a continuation of
the licensed patents and a broader interpretation would allow
defendant/licensee to capture via implied license subject matter
beyond what it had bargained. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.
Actavis, Inc., Case No. 13-1658 (Fed. Cir., Mar. 31, 2014)
(Moore, J.) (Dyk, J., dissenting-in-part).
Endo sells branded oxymorphone extended release tablets,
Opana® ER. Roxane and Actavis filed an Abbreviated New Drug
Application (ANDA) to sell generic version of Opana® ER, and
Endo thereupon sued for patent infringement under the provisions of
the Hatch-Waxman Act. The parties settled, Endo granting both
Roxane and Actavis a
