Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation : DE Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney for Patents & Antitrust Litigation in Wilmington, Dover & Newark

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.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Shire LLC, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10-329-RGA (D.Del., March 22, 2012), the Court issued its claim construction ruling on the disputed terms of three patents, U.S. Patent Numbers 5,854,290, 6,287,599 and 6,811,794, covering the drug Intuniv®, which is used to treat pediatric ADHD.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in AstraZeneca LP, et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Civil Action No. 08-53-GMS (D.Del., June 23, 2011) after a three day bench trial, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Mylan’s proposed generic budesonide product would infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,643,602 (the “‘602 patent” or the “patent-in-suit”).

A complete copy of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion is attached hereto.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Order dated June 24, 2010, Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet adopted the Report and Recommendation Regarding Claim Construction entered by Magistrate Judge Leonard P. Stark on May 12, 2010 in The Research Foundation of State of New York, et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, L.P., Civil Action No. 09-184-GMS-LPS.  In doing so, the Court adopted the constructions of the five  terms in dispute, "tetracylcline compound", "antibiotic tetracycline compound", "the tetracycline compound has substantially no anti-microbial activity", "minimum antibiotic serum concentration", and "chronic inflammatory condition", as used in the asserted claims of United States Patent Nos. 7,232,572, 7,211,267, 5,789,395 and 5,919,775 in accordance with Judge Stark's recommended constructions in his Report and Recommendation.  The Court also adopted the constructions of the six terms that the parties agreed to among themselves as set forth in Judge Stark's Report and Recommendation.  Copies of Judge Stark's Report and Recommendation Regarding Claim Construction and Judge Sleet's Order adopting it are attached.   

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link