(LQDA) – Liquidia Provides Update on Hatch-Waxman Litigation and…

(LQDA) – Liquidia Provides Update on Hatch-Waxman Litigation and…

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

  • The district court’s ruling was favorable to the ‘066 patent and unfavorable to the ‘793 patent
  • All asserted patent claims have been found invalid or not infringed by the district court or the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
  • This does not affect the PTAB’s decision to invalidate all claims of the ‘793 patent
  • The ability to seek final FDA approval for YUTREPIA™ (treprostinil) inhalation powder is pending confirmation of the PTAB decision or the overturning of the District Court decision regarding the ‘793 patent

MORRISVILLE, N.C., Aug. 31, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Liquidia Corporation LQDA announced today that Judge Andrews presiding in the lawsuit brought by United Therapeutics Corporation (UTC) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act ( Hatch-Waxman Act) alleging that Liquidia owned U.S. Patent No. 9,593,066 (‘066 patent), U.S. Patent No. 10,716,793 (‘793 patent) and U.S. Patent No 9,604,901 (‘901 patent) infringed.

The Company will host a conference call and webcast on Thursday, September 1 at 8:00 am Eastern Time. You can access the conference by dialing 1-800-715-9871 (Domestic) or 1-646-307-1963 (International) and entering the conference code: 4265646. A webcast of the conference will be available on Liquidia’s website at be https://liquidia.com/index.php/investors/events-and-presentations.

Considering today’s judgment along with previous PTAB decisions, Liquidia has now demonstrated in at least one forum that all claims made against the company are invalid or not infringed. Based on the arguments presented at the hearing, the court ruled that 5 out of 6 asserted claims of the ‘066 patent are invalid and that the only valid claim is not infringed by Liquidia. Judge Andrews also found that Liquidia would cause infringement of the 5 asserted claims of the ‘793 patent. The Court’s decision does not affect the PTAB’s earlier decision that all claims of the ‘793 patent were not patentable. That…

[ad_2]

Source story

More to explorer