ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v. APOTEX, INC.
| ELI LILLY AND COMPANY |
| APOTEX, INC. |
| 1:2017cv02865 |
| August 21, 2017 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Matthew P. Brookman |
| 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
292
ENTRY ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Lilly's Motion for Summary Judgment on its infringement claim (Filing No. 231 ) and DENIES Apotex's Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 254 ) . The filing of NDA No. 210661 by Apotex infringes the '209 patent. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A), the effective approval date of any product that is the subject of Apotex's NDA No. 210661 shall be not earlier than the latest da te of expiration of the '209 patent, including any extensions of the period of exclusivity.All other pending motions (Filing No. 198 ; Filing No. 250 ) are denied as moot. The trial and final pretrial conference are hereby vacated. Final judgment will issue under separate order. (See Entry.). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/30/2019.(NAD)
|
|
Filing
291
ENTRY ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION - For these reasons set forth above, the disputed claim terms and phrases have the following meanings: (See Entry) The clerk is directed to terminate the gavel at dkt. 132. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/23/2019.(NAD)
|
|
Filing
147
ENTRY ON APOTEX'S 132 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - In light of the misapprehension and Lilly's lack of objection to correcting any misapprehension, the Court GRANTS Apotex's Motion for Reconsideration (Filing No. 132 ). The Entry Vacating Markman Hearing (Filing No. 130 ) is amended to reflect that the parties are not in agreement that the DRL and Hospira decisions resolved the claim construction issues in this case. The Court interprets the parties' positions as in dicating that an actual Markman hearing is unnecessary. However, because the parties do not agree on the applicability of the DRL and Hospira decisions, the Court further amends the Entry Vacating Markman Hearing to ORDER the parties to submit sep arate proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for all the disputed claim terms and phrases rather than to submit a joint proposed claim construction order within thirty (30) days of the date of this Entry. Thereafter, the Court will promptly issue an Order. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/29/2018. (NAD)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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
| Search for this case: ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v. APOTEX, INC. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: APOTEX, INC. | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: ELI LILLY AND COMPANY | |
| Represented By: | Anne N. DePrez |
| Represented By: | Galina I. Fomenkova |
| Represented By: | David M. Krinsky |
| Represented By: | Adam L. Perlman |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
