Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

March 3, 2017

BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH, BAYER PHARMA AG, and JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Plaintiffs,
v.
AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED, AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., INVAGEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MICRO LABS LTD., MICRO LABS USA INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL INC., SIGMAPHARM LABORATORIES, LLC, TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS, LIMITED, and TORRENT PHARMA INC., Defendants.

          Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq., MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE; Rodger D. Smith II, Esq., MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE; Derek J. Fahnestock, Esq., MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE. Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          Bruce R. Genderson, Esq., WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, DC; Adam L. Perlman, Esq., WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, DC; Dov P. Grossman, Esq. (argued), WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, DC; Alexander S. Zolan, Esq., WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, DC; Martha C. Kidd, Esq., WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, DC, Kathryn S. Kayali, Esq., WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, DC. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and Bayer Pharma AG

          David T. Pritikin, Esq., SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Chicago, IL; Lisa A. Schneider, Esq., SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Chicago, IL; Bindu Donovan, Esq., SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, New York, NY; S. Isaac Olson, Esq., SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, New York, NY. Attorneys for Plaintiff Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

          David E. Moore, Esq., POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, DE; Bindu A. Palapura, Esq., POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Esq., POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas H. Carsten, Esq., WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C., San Diego, CA; Wendy L. Devine, Esq., WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C., San Diego, CA; Christina Dashe, Esq., WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C., San Diego, CA; David M. Hanna, Esq., WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C., San Francisco, CA. Attorneys for Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.

          Kenneth L. Dorsney, Esq., MORRIS JAMES LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen R. Auten, Esq., TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Chicago, IL; Andrew M. Alul, Esq., TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Chicago, IL; Roshan P. Shrestha, Ph.D., Esq., TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Chicago, IL. Attorneys for Defendants Micro Labs, Ltd. and Micro Labs USA, Inc.

          John C. Phillips, Jr., Esq., PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN MCLAUGHLIN & HALL, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Megan C. Haney, Esq., PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN MCLAUGHLIN & HALL, P.A., Wilmington, DE; B. Jefferson Boggs, Esq., MERCHANT & GOULD PC, Alexandria, VA; Matthew L. Fedowitz, Esq., MERCHANT & GOULD PC, Alexandria, VA; Christopher J. Sorenson, Esq., MERCHANT & GOULD PC, Minneapolis, MN. Attorneys for Defendant Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc.

          Richard L. Renck, Esq., DUANE MORRIS, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Anthony J. Fitzpatrick, Esq. (argued), DUANE MORRIS, LLP, Boston, MA; Vincent L. Capuano, Ph.D., Esq., DUANE MORRIS, LLP, Boston, MA; Emily N. Winfield, Esq., DUANE MORRIS, LLP, Chicago, IL. Attorneys for Defendant Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc.

          John W. Shaw, Esq., SHAW KELLER LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey T. Castellano, Esq., SHAW KELLER LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nathan R. Hoeschen, Esq., SHAW KELLER LLP, Wilmington, DE. Attorneys for Defendants Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently before the Court is the issue of claim construction of a single term in U.S. Patent No. 7, 157, 456 ("the '456 patent"). The Court has considered the Parties' Claim Construction Briefs. (D.I. 144, 156, 162, 168). The Court heard oral argument on March 3, 2017.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This suit arises from Defendants' filing Abbreviated New Drug Applications ("ANDA") for generic versions of Plaintiffs' anticoagulant, sold under the brand name XARELTO. (D.I. 144 at 6). Plaintiffs filed suit, alleging that the generic products that are the subjects of the ANDA filings would infringe a number of Plaintiffs'patents. (D.I. 1). The patents-in-suit claim compounds for use in treating thromboembolic disorders and methods of treatment using these compounds.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         "It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude." Phillips v. AWHCorp.,415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). '"[T]here is no magic formula or catechism for conducting claim construction.' Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate weight to appropriate sources 'in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law."' SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL 4758195, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324) (alteration in original). When construing patent claims, a court considers the literal language of the claim, the patent specification, and the prosecution history. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,52 F.3d 967, 977-80 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd,517 U.S. 370 (1996). Of these sources, "the specification is always ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.