Chief Judge Sleet Rules That Plaintiffs' '932 Patent Is Not Invalid for Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
By Memorandum Opinion entered by Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet, following a five-day bench trial, in Eli Lilly and Company, et al. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 08-335-GMS (D.Del., July 28, 2011), the Court set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, Eli Lilly and Company and The Trustees of Princeton University, and against defendants, Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Barr Laboratories, Inc. In doing so, the Court rejected defendants’ contentions and concluded that U.S. Patent No. 5,344,932 (“the ‘932 patent”) is not invalid for obviousness-type double patenting. Id. at 2-8. After considering the entire record in the case and the applicable law, the Court determined that the credibility of plaintiffs’ witnesses substantially outweighed the evidence presented by defendants, and defendants failed to prove the invalidity by obviousness-type double patenting of the ‘932 patent. Id. at 2-9.
A complete copy of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion is attached hereto.