By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in Pharmacyclics LLC et al. v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC et al., Civil Action No. 19-0434-CFC-CJB (D.Del. August 19,
Continue Reading Chief Judge Connolly Issues Comprehensive Opinion Setting Forth Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Infringement Claims and Invalidity Defenses as to Patents-in-Suit Following ANDA Trial
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
Judge Sleet Concludes that Asserted Claims of Patent In-Suit Are Not Invalid Due to Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and No Grounds for Prosecution Laches Are Present
By Fox Rothschild LLP on
Following a four-day bench trial before him in Shire Orphan Therapies LLC et al. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Civil Action No. 15-1102-GMS (D.Del. June 5, 2018), and having considered…
Continue Reading Judge Sleet Concludes that Asserted Claims of Patent In-Suit Are Not Invalid Due to Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and No Grounds for Prosecution Laches Are Present
After Two Day Bench Trial in ANDA Action, Judge Robinson Finds The ‘353 Patent Valid But Not Infringed by Generic
By Fox Rothschild LLP on
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 14-874-SLR (D.Del., November 16, 2016),…
Continue Reading After Two Day Bench Trial in ANDA Action, Judge Robinson Finds The ‘353 Patent Valid But Not Infringed by Generic
Chief Judge Sleet Rules That Plaintiffs’ ‘932 Patent Is Not Invalid for Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
By Fox Rothschild LLP on
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.…