Cases

Hughes, Circuit Judge. The Medicines Company appeals findings of no infringement made by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Hospira cross-appeals the district court’s finding that a distribution agreement did not constitute an invalidating “offer for sale” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We affirm the district court’s noninfringeme

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. Today, we consider the circumstances under which a product produced pursuant to the claims of a. product-by-process patent is “on sale” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). This is important because, if “on sale” more than one year before the filing of an application for a patent on the governing claims, any issued patent is invalid and the right to exclude other

HUGHES, Circuit Judge. The Medicines Company appeals the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s claim construction and non-infringement findings. Hospira, Inc. cross-appeals the district court’s determination that the asserted claims are not invalid under the on-sale bar, obviousness, or indefiniteness. We conclude that the district court clearly erred in finding t

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC PER CURIAM. ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant The Medicines Company filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The petition was considered by the panel that heard the appeal and thereafter referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service. A respo

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ GENENTECH, INC., Appellant v. HOSPIRA, INC., Appellee UNITED STATES, Intervenor ______________________ 2018-1933 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Pate

USCA11 Case: 20-10497 Date Filed: 06/24/2021 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-10497 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cv-02353-JSM-AAS BELCHER PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,

REBECCA R. PALLMEYER, DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff Hospira, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its primary place of business in Illinois, manufactures pharmaceuticals and medical supplies. One of Hospira's products is a chemical compound known as dexmedetomidine, which Hospira sells to health care providers under the brand name Precedex. Between 2012 and 2014, Hospira obtained four patents covering a new product made from dexmedetomidine

DYK, Circuit Judge. The Medicines Company (“Medicines”) is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,727 (“the ’727 patent”) and 7,598,343 (“the ’343 patent”). In response to an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) submitted by Mylan, Inc. (“Mylan”), Medicines filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Mylan’s ANDA infringed

MEMORANDUM GREGORY M. SLEET, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1. INTRODUCTION In this patent infringement action, plaintiff AbbVie Inc.1 (“AbbVie”) alleges that a pharmaceutical product proposed by defendant Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”) infringes the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit.2 (D.I. 1.) The court held a two-day

*********** The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Glenn, and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence. Accordingly, the Full Commission reverses the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Glenn and enters the following Opinion and Award. **

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

743 F.Supp.2d 305 (2010) AVENTIS PHARMA S.A., and Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Plaintiffs, v. HOSPIRA, INC., Defendant. Aventis Pharma S.A., and Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Apotex, Inc., and Apotex Corp., Defendants. C.A. Nos. 07-721-GMS, 08-496-GMS. United States District Court, D. Delaware. September 27, 2010. *3

*502TRIAL OPINION ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: Plaintiff brought this patent infringement suit against Defendant on July 11, 2014. (D.I. 1). On May 29, 2014, Defendant informed Plaintiff that it had filed an ANDA, seeking approval to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, or sale of generic versions of Plaintiffs Invanz product. (D.I. 191, Ex. 1

MOORE, Circuit Judge. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi-Aven-tis, and Debiopharm S.A. (collectively, Sa-nofi) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,338,874 (the '874 patent). Because the district court erred in construing composition claims as product-by-process claims, we vacate and remand. BACKGROUND This case is on appe

MOORE, Circuit Judge. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi-Aven-tis, and Debiopharm S.A. (collectively, Sa-nofi) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,338,874 (the '874 patent). Because the district court erred in construing composition claims as product-by-process claims, we vacate and remand. BACKGROUND This case is on appe

Case: 22-2299 Document: 64 Page: 1 Filed: 12/10/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC., CARNAUDMETALBOX ENGINEERING LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. BELVAC PRODUCTION MACHINERY, INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant ______________________ 2022-2299, 2022-2300 _________

Case: 19-1243 Document: 70 Page: 1 Filed: 04/08/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BASF CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SNF HOLDING COMPANY, FLOPAM INC., CHEMTALL, INC., SNF SAS, SNF (CHINA) FLOCCULANT CO. LTD., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2019-1243

MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge: *198Plaintiff Tour Technology Software, Inc. ("Tour Technology") commenced the above-captioned action on October 4, 2017, against Defendant RTV, Inc. ("RTV"), alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,754,400 (the "'400 Patent"), a system and technology for rendering an image that enables

MEMORANDUM DuBois, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION This case involves three design patents owned by PACCAR, Inc. PACCAR designs and manufactures heavy duty trucks. *671Dorman Products, Inc., which supplies automotive replacement parts, filed a Complaint against PACCAR in this Court. In the Complaint, Dorman seeks a declarat

ALIA MOSES, United States District Judge Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Victor R. Garcia, United States Magistrate Judge, filed February 1, 2019. (ECF No. 42.) In the report, Judge Garcia recommends that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to State Court (ECF No. 19) be GRANTED and the Pharmaceutical Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7)1 be <