ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v. HOSPIRA, INC.
| ELI LILLY AND COMPANY |
| HOSPIRA, INC. |
| 1:2016cv03460 |
| December 21, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Denise K. LaRue |
| 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
89
ENTRY ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Eli Lilly and Company ("Lilly") initiated this Hatch-Waxman litigation against Defendant Hospira, Inc. ("Hospira") for infringement of Lilly's U.S. Patent 7,772,209 ("the & #039;209 Patent"). On April 6, 2018, Hospira filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Non- Infringement on its New Drug Application ("NDA") No. 208746, on the bases that there is no plausible theory pled under which Hospira would infri nge the patent in suit and the doctrine of equivalents does not expand the scope of Lilly's patent to include Hospira's product. (Filing No. 73 .) On April 27, 2018, Lilly filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement. (Fili ng No. 78 .) Hospira's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement (Filing No. 73) is DENIED and Lilly's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement pursuant to literal infringement and doctrine of equivalents (Filing No. 78) is GRANTED. (See Entry.)Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/15/2018. (NAD)
|
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.
