ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v. TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, INC. et al
| ELI LILLY AND COMPANY |
| APP PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, BARR LABORATORIES, INC., PLIVA HRVATSKA D.O.O., TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, INC. and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. |
| 1:2010cv01376 |
| October 29, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Debra McVicker Lynch |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
419
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING SECOND BENCH TRIAL HELD 5/28/2015. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court concludes that Lilly has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Asserted Cla ims of the '209 patent would be infringed by the Defendants' ANDA Products based upon inducement of infringement by a single actor, the physician administering pemetrexed disodium in accordance with the claimed methods. Therefore, the Co urt finds that Defendants' ANDA Products indirectly infringe the Asserted Claims of the '209 patent, and finds in favor of Lilly and against Defendants. Final judgment shall issue separate from this Entry (S.O.). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/25/2015.(MAC)
|
|
Filing
390
ORDER denying 370 Motion in Limine. There is no basis for Defendants to claim that a theory of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is new or surprising, nor that it was only first disclosed in Lilly's pre-trial brief. Therefore, the Court finds that exclusion of evidence relating to the doctrine of equivalents is not warranted under Rule 37. **SEE ORDER** Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/20/2015. (AH)
|
|
Filing
336
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - The Court concludes that the Defendants have failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Asserted Claims of the '209 Patent are invalid for obviousness, obviousness-type double patenting, i nadequate description or lack of enablement. Therefore, the Court finds that the Asserted Claims of the '209 Patent are valid and enforceable, and enters judgment in favor of Eli Lilly and against Defendants. Final judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/31/2014.(TRG)
|
|
Filing
308
ENTRY - Defendants' Motion to preclude Plaintiff Eli Lilly and Company from relying upon portions of the deposition testimony of Dr. A. Hilary Calvert is DENIED. *SEE ENTRY*. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/22/2013. (JD)
|
|
Filing
285
ENTRY on Motions in Limine - Defendants' Motions in Limine (Dkts. 235 & 244 ) are DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/29/2013. (TRG)
|
|
Filing
115
ENTRY ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/20/2012. (JD)
|
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 Indiana Southern 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.
