Last Spring, despite the push from the U.S. Solicitor General, the Supreme Court declined to hear three key patent cases, two cases involving §101, Tropp v. Travel Sentry et al. and Interactive Wearables v. Polar Electro Oy, et al., and the infamous GSK v. Teva.

During this session, our panelists will analyze the significance of the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear these cases and explore the potential impact on Hatch-Waxman litigation strategies. They will also market dynamics, and the overall impact of these rejections on the pharmaceutical IP landscape. Points of discussion will include:

• Uncovering the business consequences stemming from the Court’s refusal to hear these cases
• Exploring how these decisions may collectively affect the balance of power between brand-name drug manufacturers and generic challengers, market entry opportunities, and the overall competitive landscape
• Assessing how lower courts may interpret and apply the existing § 101 and carve-out legal frameworks
• Evaluating the potential impact of the absence of the Supreme Court’s pronouncement on the evolving landscape of pharmaceutical patent disputes in the areas of patent eligibility and skinny labeling