Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Shire LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA Inc., C.A. No. 10-329-RGA (D. Del. Jul. 23, 2012).

Shire LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA Inc., C.A. No. 10-329-RGA (D. Del. Jul. 23, 2012).

Ratings: (0)|Views: 266 |Likes:
Published by Alfred Reyes

More info:

Categories:Topics, Art & Design
Published by: Alfred Reyes on Jul 31, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/05/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARESHIRE LLC et al,Plaintiffs,
v.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.et al,Defendants.Civil Action No. 10-329-RGA
ORDER
Having reviewed Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss All Claims and Counterclaims Relating tothe '290 Patent and to Drop Plaintiffs Arnsten, Hunt, and Rakic from This Case (D.I. 242) andrelated briefing (D.I. 243, 244, 263, 264, 266, 273), as well as Defendant Anchen's Motion forJudgment on the Pleadings on Count I
of
Anchen's Counterclaims (D.I. 265) and related briefing(D.I. 266, 272, 273, 279), having had oral argument on both Motions (D.I. 316), and havingrequested, received, and reviewed supplemental letters (D.I. 317, 350), IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED
that Plaintiffs' Motion (D.I. 242) is
DENIED
and Anchen's Motion (D.I. 265) is
GRANTED,
and that Anchen is entitled to judgment as a matter
of
law that U.S. Patent No.5,854,290 is
INVALID
for the reasons that follow:
1.
The Court retains jurisdiction over a patent dedicated to the public where, as here, itremains listed on the Orange Book and therefore has the potential to create a triggering event forthe first-filer's exclusivity. The Court adopts the reasoning set forth in
Teva Pharms.
USA, Inc.
v.
Eisai
Co.,
Ltd,
620 F.3d 1341, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2010),
vacated as moot,
131
S.Ct. 2991(20
11
).
The Court therefore also retains jurisdiction over Defendants' claim for attorneys' feesunder
35
U.S.C.
§
285.
1
Ii
l
Case 1:10-cv-00329-RGA Document 395 Filed 07/23/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3482

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->