Decisions In IP Matter Re Muscle Relaxant Drug & Suit Under the Mining Control & Reclamations Act

By FindLaw Staff on August 02, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

King Pharm. Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 09-1437, concerned a plaintiff's patent infringement suit under the Hatch-Waxman Act, related to a name brand muscle relaxant used to treat "discomforts associated with acute, painful musculosketal conditions."  In affirming the judgment of the district court in part, the court held that although the district court erred in invalidating several of the claims as unpatentable under section 101, all the claims of the '128 and '102 patents are ultimately anticipated under 35 U.S.C. section 102 or obvious under section 103 in light of the prior art.  However, the court vacated and remanded as, the district court erred in entering a judgment of invalidity against Elan because no case or controversy currently exists between Elan and defendant.

Consol. Coal Co. v. US, 1832599, concerned a challenge to the the United States court of Federal Claims' grant of summary judgment finding that certain regulations that implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamations Act of 1977 (SMCRA) reclamation fee do not violate the Export Clause of the Constitution, in a suit by a group of operators in the coal mining industry.  In affirming the grant of summary judgment, the court held that all of Office of Surface Mining's (OSM) challenged regulations for collecting the reclamation fee under SMCRA, like the statute itself, apply to "coal extracted" and do not violate the Export Clause.

Related Resources:

Copied to clipboard