RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS VIRGINIA TRIAL
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS VIRGINIA PROFESSIONAL

and published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology, Volume 67, No. Specifically, the counterclaims allege that UTHR failed to disclose to the USPTO the following prior art references, among others:Ī 2016 publication that UTHR helped support entitled “Safety and Tolerability of High-dose Inhaled Treprostinil in Pulmonary Hypertension” authored by Parikh et al.

With regard to the ‘327 patent, the counterclaims request declarations from the District Court that the patent is not infringed, is invalid and is unenforceable. Liquidia has therefore filed a partial motion to dismiss requesting that all claims related to the ‘793 patent be dismissed based on collateral estoppel. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) affirmed the PTAB’s finding that the ‘793 patent is invalid.

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS VIRGINIA TRIAL

We will continue to aggressively defend ourselves and the ability of patients suffering from PAH and PH-ILD to have a choice of products to treat their rare and deadly disease.”Īs previously disclosed, the asserted ‘793 patent was previously held to be invalid in a prior proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Roger Jeffs, Chief Executive Officer, said: “United Therapeutics seeks to interfere with our launch of YUTREPIA in PH-ILD by relitigating the same ‘793 patent that was previously found to be invalid and asserting a new patent that was procured without submitting highly material prior art references and important additional information to the USPTO. Furthermore, the counterclaims summarize certain publications, references and information that UTHR failed to submit to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) during the prosecution of the ‘327 patent.ĭr. Simultaneously, Liquidia filed counterclaims against UTHR seeking a declaration that all asserted claims of the ‘327 patent are not infringed, are invalid and are unenforceable. 11,826,327 (the ‘327 patent) in association with Liquidia’s New Drug Application (NDA) for YUTREPIA™ (treprostinil) inhalation powder. District Court for the District of Delaware (District Court) that alleges the infringement of U.S. 08, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) - Liquidia Corporation LQDA (Liquidia or the Company) announced today it filed its answer, affirmative defenses and a partial motion to dismiss in response to the amended patent infringement complaint filed by United Therapeutics Corporation (UTHR) on November 30, 2023, under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (the Hatch-Waxman Act) in the U.S.

Files counterclaims asserting United Therapeutics failed to properly disclose prior art references and additional material information in its prosecution of the ‘327 patent that would have rendered the claims unpatentable.

Requests declaration that ‘327 patent is not infringed, is invalid and is unenforceable.

Seeks dismissal of all claims related to ‘793 patent based on prior findings of invalidity which have been affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS VIRGINIA PROFESSIONAL

You should not act or rely upon information contained in these materials without specifically seeking professional legal advice from an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. The creation of the attorney-client relationship would require direct, personal contact between you and our firm through one or more attorneys and would also require an explicit agreement by the firm that confirms that an attorney-client relationship is established and expresses the terms of that relationship. Communication of information by or through this website and your receipt or use of such information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship with Hall Underwood or any of the firm's attorneys. None of these materials are offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. Currently, our attorneys are licenesed to practice only in Arizona and Illinois. There is no effort or intention to solicit new clients or new engagements from existing clients by way of this website nor should any of the information published on the website be construed as representing any of our lawyers' availability to practice in jurisdictions where they are not authorized to do so. The material on this website has been prepared and published for informational purposes only.

Response to motion to dismiss virginia