By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in Pharmacyclics LLC et al. v. Cipla Limited, et al., Civil Action No. 18-192-CFC/CJB (D.Del. November 10, 2020) (Consolidated), the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to preclude Defendant Sandoz from maintaining its theory that U.S. Patent No. 10,106,548 (“the ‘548 patent”) is invalid

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Johns Hopkins University v. 454 Life Sciences Corp., Civil Action No. 13-1853-LPS (D.Del., May 2, 2016), the Court granted John Hopkins University’s (“JHU”) motion for partial summary judgment of a priority date of no later than June 5, 2003 with respect to the

By Order entered on October 29, 2010 followed by a Memorandum Opinion entered by Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet on November 5, 2010 in the consolidated action, Eli Lilly and Company, et al. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 08-335-GMS (D.Del.), the Court held that the prior art rules found in 35 U.S.C. § 102 ("§ 102") including the dates set forth in the relevant provisions of § 102, shall apply to its analysis of determining the relevant date(s) for whether a reference or use constitutes prior art for the purposes of an obviousness-type double patenting defense. Id. at 7.

Copies of the Order and Memorandum Opinion are attached.


Continue Reading Court Holds That Prior Art Rules Found in 35 U.S.C. § 102 Apply to Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Analysis