By Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Belcher Pharmaceutical, LLC v. Hospira, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-775-LPS (D.Del. March 31, 2020), following a two day bench trial and post-trial briefing in the action filed by plaintiff Belcher under the Hatch-Waxman Act as a result of defendant Hospira’s attempt to bring to

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. et al. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 19-149-MN (D.Del. June 6, 2019), the Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction of Plaintiffs, Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. and Evalve, Inc., seeking to enjoin Defendants, Edwards Lifesciences Corp.

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 Chief Judge Sleet Finds Two Of The Asserted Claims Of Plaintiffs’ Patent-In-Suit Are Invalid Due To Indefiniteness