By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Green Mountain Glass LLC & Culchrome LLC v. Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. d/b/a Veralla North America, Civil Action No. 14-392 (D.Del. March 8, 2018), the Court, subsequent to a five-day jury trial after which the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs on

Following a five-day bench trial in the matter in February 2017 and after having considered the entire record in the case and the applicable law, the Court, through Memorandum, entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., Civil Action No. 14-1309-GMS (consolidated) (D.Del. September 6, 2017),

By Trial Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews, following a bench trial, in Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC et al., Civil Action No. 14-1382-RGA (consolidated) (D.Del. October 7, 2016), the Court ruled that defendants failed to prove their affirmative defenses of obviousness and implied license.

Plaintiffs, Endo Pharmaceuticals

Following a four day bench trial in a consolidated ANDA action before The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Genzyme Corp., et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., et al., Civil Action Nos. 13-1506 and 13-1508-GMS (D.Del., May 11, 2016), the Court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Pfizer Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13-110-GMS (D.Del., Apr. 20, 2016), the Court denied defendants’ post-trial proposed finding that the Court find the patents-in-suit were invalid due to obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  After having conducted a four-day

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Pfizer Inc., et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., C.A. No. 10-528-GMS (D.Del., October 22, 2014), the Court, following a four day bench trial and after having considered the entire record in the case and the applicable law, concluded that none of the asserted

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Abbvie Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., C.A. No. 11-648- GMS (D.Del., October 24, 2014), the Court, following a two day bench trial and after having considered the entire record in the case and the applicable law, concluded that (1) the asserted claims of the

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in the consolidated patent infringement action, Aventis Pharma S.A., et al. v. Hospira, Inc., C.A. No 07-721-GMS and Aventis Pharma S.A., et al. v. Apotex, Inc., C.A. No. 08-496-GMS (D.Del., September 27, 2010), the Court concluded, among other things, that (1) claims 2 and 10 of the ‘561 patent are invalid due to indefiniteness; (2) all asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid due to obviousness; and (3) the asserted claims are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Id. at 2. The Court made its ruling following a seven day bench trial and post-trial submissions by the parties.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 


Continue Reading

In Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-779-SLR, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, by and through a memorandum opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson on June 14, 2010, entered judgment in favor of defendants, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (“Apotex”), and against plaintiffs, Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd (“Senju”), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (“Kyorin”) and Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”). The case is an infringement action that was tried by bench trial on January 12-14, 2010. In rendering judgment in favor of defendants, the Court concluded among other things that, although plaintiffs had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants’ ANDA product infringed claims 1-3, 6,7, and 9 of the patent in dispute, U.S. Patent No. 6,333,045 (“the ‘045 patent”), defendants demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that those claims are invalid based on obviousness given the asserted prior art. Id. at 15-21 and 37.

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


Continue Reading

By an opinion rendered by the Honorable Mary Pat Thynge, dated February 5, 2010, in Inline Corp. v. Earthlink, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted the motion for judgment as a matter of law of plaintiff, Inline Connection Corporation ("Inline"), as to the jury’s patent invalidity verdict, but denied the motion as to the jury’s non-infringement verdict.  The Court also denied Inline’s motion for a new trial.

A copy of the opinion is attached.


Continue Reading