IPWatchdog.com is in the process of transitioning to a newer version of our website. Please be patient with us while we work out all the kinks.
is a Senior Attorney with Honigman and a registered patent attorney with 15 years’ experience in patent prosecution and litigation. She has helped clients to obtain patent rights worldwide, advised clients regarding patent procurement, and worked with experts to formulate strategies for trial. She has represented clients from various technology areas in federal court and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Gretchen’s in-depth knowledge of complex technology enables her to leverage sophisticated strategies and creative approaches to meet her clients’ needs.
The Federal Circuit’s recent majority opinion and Chief Judge Prost’s dissenting opinion in the GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals “skinny labeling” case has raised eyebrows and piqued interest beyond the usual circles. The decision’s result is a lower bar for finding induced infringement—a win for brand-name companies. While the jury found infringement against Teva’s skinny labeled carvedilol, a congestive heart failure drug, we could not help but wonder if the American public sees the issue more like the majority Federal Circuit opinion or more like the dissenting opinion of Chief Judge Prost? How do Americans view “skinny labeling,” and how might those opinions intersect with future findings of the evolving law? Will jurors see the stronger position of brand companies as something to uphold or does the consumer benefit of generics foster a different preference? We discuss the legal perspectives and national surveys on skinny labeling and patent protections to expand the conversation.