Following Seven Day Bench Trial, Judge Robinson Finds Plaintiff Pronova Did Prove Infringement of Its '667 and '077 Patents by Defendants in ANDA Action
By Opinion issued by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Pronova Biopharma Norge AS v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 09-286-SLR (D.Del., May 29, 2012), the Court set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law following a seven day bench trial in an infringement action which arose out of the filing of ANDA applications by defendants, Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. (“Teva”) and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (collectively, “Par”), seeking to market versions of Lovaza®, which is prescribed to treat high blood levels of triglycerides. After considering the documentary evidence and testimony, the Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff Pronova finding that: (1) Pronova proved by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants infringed Pronova’s ‘667 and ‘077 patents; (2) defendants did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the patents-in-suit are invalid; and (3) defendants did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that either patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Id. at 55.
A complete copy of the Opinion is attached.