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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Purdue Pharmaceutical v. actavis Elizabeth LLC, No. 15-1659 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2016)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 15-1659
Decided
January 8, 2016
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

PURDUE PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS L.P.,

PURDUE PHARMA L.P., TRANSCEPT

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., NKA PARATEK

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

ACTAVIS ELIZABETH LLC, NOVEL

LABORATORIES, INC., DR. REDDY'S

LABORATORIES, INC., DR. REDDY'S

LABORATORIES, LTD.,

Defendants-Appellees

PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,

TWI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Defendants

2015-1659

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in Nos. 2:12-cv-05311-JLL-JAD, 2:13-cv-05003-JLL-JAD, Judge Jose L. Linares.

JUDGMENT

2CHRISTOPHER NEIL SIPES, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by ERICA NICOLE ANDERSEN, MICHAEL N. KENNEDY.

JACOB M. HOLDREITH, Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendant-appellee Novel Laboratories, Inc. also represented by MILES FINN, JEFFREY ALAN HOVDEN, OREN D. LANGER, New York, NY.

SAMUEL S. PARK, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL, for defendant-appellee Actavis Elizabeth LLC. Also represented by DAN HOANG; CHARLES B. KLEIN, Washington, DC.

JEFFREY B. ARNOLD, Cantor Colburn LLP, Atlanta, GA, for defendants-appellees Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. Also represented by STEVEN M. COYLE, NICHOLAS GEIGER, Hartford, CT.

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

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

January 8, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

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

Purdue Pharmaceutical v. actavis Elizabeth LLC, No. 15-1659 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2016).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-ca13-15-01659-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01659-0

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.