1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 754 F.3d
  5. 754 F.3d 952 (2014)
 

ALLERGAN, INC. v. APOTEX INC.

Nos. 2013-1245, 2013-1246, 2013-1247, 2013-1249.

754 F.3d 952 (2014)

ALLERGAN, INC., and Duke University, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. APOTEX INC., Apotex Corp., Sandoz, Inc., and Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Defendants-Appellants. Allergan, Inc., and Duke University, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Actavis, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., and Watson Pharma, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 10, 2014.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jonathan E. Singer , Fish & Richardson P.C., of Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief were Deanna J. Reichel ; and Juanita R. Brooks , of San Diego, CA. Of counsel was Jeffrey T. Thomas , Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, of Irvine, CA.

Deanne M. Mazzochi , Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik LLP, of Chicago, IL, argued for defendants-appellants Apotex Inc., et al. With her on the brief were William A. Rakoczy , Paul J. Molino , and Andrew M. Alul , for Apotex Inc., et al; Meredith Martin Addy , Thomas Filarski , and Brandon C. Helms , Steptoe & Johnson LLP, of Chicago, IL, for Sandoz Inc.; Steven Roth , Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., of Amityville, NY, and Thomas J. Vetter , Lucas & Mercanti, LLP, of New York, NY, for Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc.; and Gary E. Hood , Robyn H. Ast and Mark T. Deming , Polsinelli PC, of Chicago, IL for Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Of counsel were Luke T. Shannon and Harven V. Deshield , Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik LLP, of Chicago, IL.

Opinion for the court filed by Chief Judge PROST. Opinion dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge CHEN.

PROST, Chief Judge.

Apotex Inc., Apotex Corp., Sandoz, Inc., Hit-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Actavis, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., and Watson Pharma, Inc. (collectively "appellants") appeal from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina finding that appellants had infringed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,388,029 ("'029 patent") and 7,351,404 ("'404 patent") and had failed to establish they were invalid. For the reasons stated...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases