Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Ingelheim v. Mylan, No. 09-1402 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2010)

Vacated & Remanded
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 09-1402
Decided
August 2, 2010
Judge
Rader, C.J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

Nove: This order is nonprecedential. GAnited States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL

GMBH and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

ve

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

and MYLAN INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

2009-1402

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in case no. 09-CV-366, Judge Faith S. Hochberg.

ON MOTION

Before RADER, Chief Judge, BRYSON and MoorE, Circuit

Judges.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

ORDER

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

2BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM v. MYLAN PHARMA 2

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. move without opposition to vacate the May 12, 2009 order of the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey in 09-CV-366 and remand for further proceedings.”

The parties previously moved to stay proceeding in this appeal pending disposition of appeal 2009-1032. In that appeal, this court recently vacated the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware that had held the underlying patent invalid and remanded for further proceedings.

In the present appeal, 2009-1402, the District Court for the District of New Jersey considered the effect of the Delaware district court's determination and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Boehringer involving the same patent, based upon issue preclusion and claim preclusion. The parties agree that due to the disposition of 2009-1032, the district court's order must be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

  • * The district court's order was signed by the district court judge on May 12, 2009 and filed by the district court on May 138, 2009.
    Figure on page 3 of the opinion

33 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM v. MYLAN PHARMA

For THE CourT AUG - 2 2010 /sf Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc: Bruce M. Wexler, Esq.

Shannon M. Bloodworth, Esq.

$20 Issued As A Mandate: AUG 2 2010

AUG 02 2010

JAN HORBALY

CLERK

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Ingelheim v. Mylan, No. 09-1402 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2010).

Record ID
CAFC-09-1402-20100802
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-09-1402-20100802

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.