Cases

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. Alza Corp. (“Alza”) appeals from the district court’s judgment, after a bench trial, of noninfringement and invalidity of claims 1-3, 11, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,124,355 1 (“the ’355 patent”) in favor of Mylan Laboratories, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “My-lan”).

DYK, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part. I agree with the majority that the paten-tee effectively disclaimed coverage of the Keith patent in the specification of the ’580 patent, and that the Keith patent does not anticipate. However, I write separately because I cannot agree with the majority’s affirmance of the district court’s finding of no inequitabl

349 F.Supp.2d 1002 (2004) ALZA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MYLAN LABORATORIES, INC. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants. No. CIV.A.1:03 CV 61. United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia. December 7, 2004. *1005 Frank E. Simmerman, Jr., Esquire, Simmerman Law Office PLLC, Clarksburg, WV, Jeffrey I.D. Lewis, Esquire, J

388 F.Supp.2d 717 (2005) ALZA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MYLAN LABORATORIES, INC. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 1:03CV61. United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia. September 27, 2005. *718 *719 *720 Frank E. Simmerman, Jr.,

310 F.Supp.2d 610 (2004) ALZA CORPORATION and Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. Plaintiffs, v. MYLAN LABORATORIES, INC., Mylan Technologies, Inc., and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants. No. 2:02-CV-20, 2:02-CV-213. United States District Court, D. Vermont. March 25, 2004. *611 *612

332 F.Supp.2d 106 (2004) MYLAN LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Tommy G. THOMPSON, et al., Defendants, and Alza Corporation, et al., Intervenor-Defendants. No. CIV.A.04-1049(RBW). United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 17, 2004. *107 *108 Joseph Anthony Hynds,

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON. KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: Appellants Mylan Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Technologies, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Mylan) appeal the district court’s summary judgment upholding the decision of appellee Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA decision granted appellees ALZA

Opinion & Order BARBARA S. JONES, District Judge. *387TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. CO CO o I. The Parties. CO CO o II. The Patents-In-Suit. 03 05 CO A. Patent Ownership. CO CO III. The Pleadings. CO CO A. Complaint Against Mylan/Esteve.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AMY J. ST. EVE, District Court Judge: In this patent infringement action, The Medicines Company (“TMC”) asserts that Defendants’ proposed generic bivalirudin drug product infringes United States Patent No. 7,582,727 (the “’727 patent”). Specifically, TMC claims that Defendants Mylan, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Bioniche Pharma USA, LLC (collectively, “Mylan

MEMORANDUM GREGORY M. SLEET, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION In this patent infringement action, plaintiffs Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC, Sugen, Inc., C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V., Pfizer Pharmaceuticals LLC, and PF Prism C.V. (collectively, “Pfizer”) allege that pharmaceutical products proposed by de

Case: 24-1664 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 12/06/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ GALDERMA LABORATORIES, L.P., TCD ROYALTY SUB LP, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. LUPIN INC., LUPIN LTD., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2024-1664 ___________________

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. After a bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware found U.S. Patent Nos. 7,387,793 and 7,544,372 invalid as obvious. Case No.2011-1409 is an appeal from that judgment. We reverse and vacate the district court’s judgment of invalidity because the district court erred when it declared the patents in suit invalid as obvious. Specifically, by failing to consider the lack of a know

Opinion dissenting in part filed by Chief Judge Prost. Lourie, Circuit Judge. *1346 Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. ("Actavis") appeals from the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware that (1) its proposed naltrexone hydrochloride and bupropio

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 8, 2004 Decided November 30, 2004 No. 04-5296 MYLAN LABO

MEMORANDUM Gregory M. Sleet, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I.INTRODUCTION In this Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action, plaintiff Tris Pharma, Inc. (“Tris”) alleges patent infringement by de- ■ fendant Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (“Actavis”).. Plaintiff alleges that, by filing Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“AN-DAs”) seeking approval to market generic versions of Quillivant

Watson Laboratories, Inc.—Florida (“Watson”) appeals from the decisions of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (i) holding that the subject matter of the asserted claims of Ferring B.V.’s (“Ferring”) U.S. Patents 7,947,739 (the “'739 patent”), 8,022,106 (the “'106 patent”), and 8,273,795 (the “'795 patent”) would not have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, (ii) finding that Watson’s gene

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Alcon Research Ltd. (“Alcon”) appeals from the final judgments of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware finding that Barr Laboratories, Inc. (“Barr”) does not infringe claim 12 of Alcon’s U.S. Patent 5,631,287 (the “'287 patent”) and claim 19 of Alcon’s U.S. Patent 6,011,062 (the “'062 patent”) and holding those claims invalid for

MEMORANDUM GREGORY M. SLEET, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION In this consolidated patent infringement action, plaintiffs Allergan, Inc., Allergan USA, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, Endo Pharmaceuticals Solutions Inc., and Super-nus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “the plaintiffs”) allege that pharmaceutical products proposed by defendants Watson Laboratories, Inc.—Florida, San

655 F.3d 1352 (2011) UNIGENE LABORATORIES, INC. and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. APOTEX, INC. and Apotex Corp., Defendants-Appellants. No. 2010-1006. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. August 25, 2011. *1354 Bruce C. Haas, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, of New York, NY, argued

789 F.Supp.2d 701 (2011) Kimberly HARTMAN, Plaintiff, v. CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES, LTD., a corporation, and Trivillian's Pharmacy of Kanawha City, Inc., a corporation, Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:10-1319. United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, at Charleston. April 29, 2011. *702 Sean W. Cook, Larry O. Ford