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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Pozen Inc. v. PAR Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 12-1023 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2012)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 12-1023
Decided
June 5, 2012
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

POZEN INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PAR PHARMACEUTICA, INC.,

and DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.,

Defendants,

and

ALPHAPHARM PTY. LTD.,

Defendant-Appellant.

2012-1023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Consolidated Case No. 08-CV-0437, Judge Leonard Davis.

JUDGMENT

STEPHEN M. HASH, Vinson & Elkins LLP, of Austin, Texas, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were TRACEY B. DAVIES, WILLEM G. SCHUURMAN; JENNIFER LIBRACH NALL; and STEPHANIE LOLLO DONAHUE and REBECCA CANTOR, of New York, New York.

THOMAS J. PARKER, Alston & Bird LLP, of New York, New York, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief was NATALIE C. CLAYTON.

2THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT June 5, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date 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

Pozen Inc. v. PAR Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 12-1023 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2012).

Record ID
CAFC-12-1023-20120605
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-12-1023-20120605

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.