1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.2d
  4. 286 F.Supp.2d
  5. 286 F.Supp.2d 925 (2001)
 

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM, CORP. v. APOTEX CORP.

No. 98 C 3952.

286 F.Supp.2d 925 (2001)

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM, CORPORATION and Beecham Group, p.l.c., Plaintiffs, v. APOTEX CORP., Apotex, Inc., and Torpharm, Inc., Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

December 3, 2001.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

William F. Conlon, John W. Treece, Richard J. O'Brien, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, Chicago, IL, Ford F. Farabow, Richard B. Racine, Howard W. Levine, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Hugh L. Moore, Richard Philip Beem, Scott B. Feder, Keith D. Parr, Paul J. Molino, William Andrew Rakoczy, Deanne M. Mazzochi, Lord, Bissell & Brook LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

Robert F. Green, Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Intervenor.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KOCORAS, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on motions for summary judgment regarding the validity of Plaintiffs' patent and noninfringement of that patent by Defendants' proposed drug. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Defendants' motions. We grant the Plaintiffs' motions on the issue of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), (f), and (g).

BACKGROUND

In the 1970s, scientists at the Danish company...

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