Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paddock Laboratories, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paddock Laboratories, Inc.

Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paddock Laboratories, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Defendant:	Paddock Laboratories, Inc.
Case Number:	1:2009cv01905
Filed:	March 2, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Patent Office
County:	XX Out of State
Presiding Judge:	Leonard B. Sand
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:	35:183 Patent Infringement

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
June 1, 2010	Filing 102 OPINION re: 62 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Notice of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of the Validity and Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,908,638 filed by Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 75 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,908,638 and Supporting Claim Construction filed by Paddock Laboratories, Inc. Based on the foregoing, Duramed is unable to rebut the Festo presumption, and prosecution history estoppel applies. Duramed is theref ore precluded from relying on the doctrine of equivalents in its patent infringement action. Because Duramed cannot succeed on its patent infringement action without resorting to the doctrine of equivalents for the ethylcellulose MBC limitation, Dura med's patent infringement claim fails. See, e.g., Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Paddocks motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is granted solely on prosecution hi story estoppel grounds. This holding moots all remaining claims and arguments, including Paddocks argument-based estoppel and claim vitiation arguments. Because our prosecution history estoppel ruling entails a holding of noninfringement, there is no indication that a live case or controversy is presented by Paddock's further claims that the '638 patent is invalid; indeed, Paddock itself claims that a prosecution history estoppel holding "would end the case." (Def.'s Mem . Opp. Pl.'s Mot. Partial Summ. J. 4.) Consequently, we forego consideration of Duramed's motion for partial summary judgment, and both parties' claim construction arguments. As the Hatch-Waxman Act automatic stay of FDA approval for Paddock's proposed generic tablets will end on the date judgment is entered, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment forthwith and close the case. (Signed by Judge Leonard B. Sand on 6/1/2010) (tro)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 1, 2010

Filing 102 OPINION re: 62 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Notice of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of the Validity and Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,908,638 filed by Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 75 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,908,638 and Supporting Claim Construction filed by Paddock Laboratories, Inc. Based on the foregoing, Duramed is unable to rebut the Festo presumption, and prosecution history estoppel applies. Duramed is theref ore precluded from relying on the doctrine of equivalents in its patent infringement action. Because Duramed cannot succeed on its patent infringement action without resorting to the doctrine of equivalents for the ethylcellulose MBC limitation, Dura med's patent infringement claim fails. See, e.g., Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Paddocks motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is granted solely on prosecution hi story estoppel grounds. This holding moots all remaining claims and arguments, including Paddocks argument-based estoppel and claim vitiation arguments. Because our prosecution history estoppel ruling entails a holding of noninfringement, there is no indication that a live case or controversy is presented by Paddock's further claims that the '638 patent is invalid; indeed, Paddock itself claims that a prosecution history estoppel holding "would end the case." (Def.'s Mem . Opp. Pl.'s Mot. Partial Summ. J. 4.) Consequently, we forego consideration of Duramed's motion for partial summary judgment, and both parties' claim construction arguments. As the Hatch-Waxman Act automatic stay of FDA approval for Paddock's proposed generic tablets will end on the date judgment is entered, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment forthwith and close the case. (Signed by Judge Leonard B. Sand on 6/1/2010) (tro)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paddock Laboratories, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Represented By:	Jay Philip Lefkowitz
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 ]
Defendant: Paddock Laboratories, 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 ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?