In a July 26, 2013 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part a ruling by Judge Barbara S. Jones finding infringement of Teva Pharmaceuticals' patents for Copaxone, which is used to treat multiple sclerosis. The patent claims at issue in the consolidated cases against Sandoz, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. had been placed in two groups, Groups I and II, for purposes of the infringement action. The claims in both groups used the term "molecular weight" without reference specifically to which of the multiple definitions of "molecular weight" was intended. The defendants argued before Judge Jones that all the claims in Groups I and II were indefinite for failing to specify which "molecular weight" of the active ingredient was referenced. Judge Jones rejected the indefiniteness argument (and other invalidity arguments), and found all the claims valid and infringed. The Federal Circuit reversed as to the Group I claims, finding them indefinite and therefore invalid, and affirmed the validity and infringement holding as to the Group II claims.for the Southern District of New York
Showing posts with label Judge Jones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge Jones. Show all posts
Federal Circuit Affirms-in-Part and Reverses-in-Part Patent Infringment Ruling
In a July 26, 2013 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part a ruling by Judge Barbara S. Jones finding infringement of Teva Pharmaceuticals' patents for Copaxone, which is used to treat multiple sclerosis. The patent claims at issue in the consolidated cases against Sandoz, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. had been placed in two groups, Groups I and II, for purposes of the infringement action. The claims in both groups used the term "molecular weight" without reference specifically to which of the multiple definitions of "molecular weight" was intended. The defendants argued before Judge Jones that all the claims in Groups I and II were indefinite for failing to specify which "molecular weight" of the active ingredient was referenced. Judge Jones rejected the indefiniteness argument (and other invalidity arguments), and found all the claims valid and infringed. The Federal Circuit reversed as to the Group I claims, finding them indefinite and therefore invalid, and affirmed the validity and infringement holding as to the Group II claims.
Labels:
12 Civ. 1567
,
Federal Circuit
,
Indefiniteness
,
Judge Jones
,
Patent Infringement
Posted by
Richard Crisona
Posted by
Richard Crisona
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
Labels
05 Civ. 390
(
1
)
09 Civ. 10112
(
1
)
09 Civ. 528
(
1
)
10 Civ. 3734
(
1
)
10 Civ. 7246
(
1
)
11 Civ. 1001
(
1
)
11 Civ. 1594
(
1
)
11 Civ. 4985
(
1
)
11 Civ. 6808
(
1
)
12 Civ 5071
(
1
)
12 Civ. 3699
(
1
)
12 Civ. 3810
(
1
)
12 Civ. 4919
(
1
)
12 Civ. 5070
(
1
)
12 Civ. 5230
(
1
)
12 Civ. 6283
(
2
)
12 Civ. 779
(
1
)
12 Civ. 7902
(
1
)
12 Civ. 9260
(
1
)
12 Civ. 95
(
1
)
13 Civ. 1787
(
1
)
13 Civ. 684
(
1
)
ACPA
(
1
)
ANDA
(
2
)
Advice of Counsel
(
1
)
Affirmative Defense
(
3
)
Anonymity
(
2
)
Attorneys' Fees
(
18
)
Bifurcation
(
1
)
Breach of Contract
(
2
)
Case or Controversy
(
2
)
Contempt
(
2
)
Copyright
(
9
)
Copyright Infringement
(
76
)
Counterfeiting
(
4
)
Damages
(
7
)
Declaratory Judgment
(
7
)
Default Judgment
(
2
)
Federal Circuit
(
2
)
First Sale Doctrine
(
1
)
Fraud
(
1
)
Fraudulent Concealment
(
1
)
Infringement Contentions
(
3
)
Interlocutory Appeal
(
4
)
Judge Abrams
(
5
)
Judge Buchwald
(
3
)
Judge Castel
(
8
)
Judge Cedarbaum
(
1
)
Judge Daniels
(
4
)
Judge Dolinger
(
2
)
Judge Forrest
(
16
)
Judge Gardephe
(
5
)
Judge Hellerstein
(
4
)
Judge Oetken
(
5
)
Judge Preska
(
4
)
Judge Ramos
(
1
)
Judge Schofield
(
5
)
Judge Sullivan
(
12
)
Moot
(
4
)
Motion to Quash
(
2
)
Patent
(
1
)
Patent Infringement
(
56
)
Preliminary Injunction
(
4
)
Reasonable Royalty
(
2
)
Renewal
(
1
)
Safe Harbor
(
1
)
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
(
5
)
Summary Judgment
(
8
)
Trademark
(
2
)
Trademark Infringement
(
42
)
Willfulness
(
6
)
The general information and thoughts posted to this blog are provided only as an informational service to the web community and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. Nothing on this blog is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and nothing posted constitutes legal advice. You should understand that the posts by the author, who is an attorney at U.S. law firm Allegaert, Berger & Vogel, may or may not reflect the views of that firm and that the author of this blog is only authorized to practice law in the jurisdictions in which he is properly licensed to do so. For additional information, click here.