Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited et al v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. et al
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International GmbH, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. and Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. |
Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., Actavis Pharma, Inc., Andrx Corporation and Actavis, Inc. |
1:2015cv00451 |
June 3, 2015 |
US District Court for the District of Delaware |
Wilmington Office |
New Castle |
Richard G. Andrews |
Patent |
35 U.S.C. ยง 271 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 184 TRIAL OPINION. Plaintiff should submit an agreed upon form of final judgment within two weeks. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 10/13/2017. (nms) |
Filing 140 MEMORANDUM ORDER: The issued raised in Defendant's letter (D.I. 130 ) have been considered, and the Order of May 19, 2017 (D.I. 129 ) will not be altered. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/31/2017. (nms) |
Filing 129 MEMORANDUM ORDER regarding two disputes that arose at the pretrial conference (D.I. 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 ). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/19/2017. (nms) |
Filing 60 MEMORANDUM OPINION providing claim construction for multiple terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,462,626 and 8,916,195. Within five day the parties shall submit a proposed order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 6/6/2016. (nms) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Delaware District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.