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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Aralez Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al, No. 2:17-cv-00071 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2017)

Adopted Report and recommendation (or magistrate's order) adopted
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:17-cv-00071, Dkt. No. 68
Decided
August 10, 2017
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 64 Report and Recommendation, Teva's 67 Objections OVERRULED; 38 Motion to Dismiss filed by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. DENIED
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

ARALEZ PHARMACEUTICALS INC., §

ARALEZ PHARMACEUTICALS §

TRADING DAC, ARALEZ § Case No. 2:17-CV-00071-JRG-RSP PHARMACEUTICALS US INC., POZEN §

INC., §

§ Plaintiffs, § § v. § § TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., §

§ Defendants. §

ORDER

The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Payne on July 17, 2017 (Dkt. No. 64) recommending that Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Teva”) Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (Dkt. No. 38) be denied. Defendant Teva has filed an objection seeking reconsideration of the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 67.) The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo and finds no reason to reject or modify the recommended disposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Davidson v. Georgia-Pac., L.L.C., 819 F.3d 758, 762 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Toney, No. 16-CR-43-JPS, 2016 WL 3945358, at *1 (E.D. Wis. July 19, 2016) (noting that a motion to dismiss for improper venue is a dispositive motion), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Haslage, 853 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2017).

2Accordingly, it is ORDERED: (1) Teva’s objections (Dkt. No. 67) are OVERRULED. (2) Magistrate Judge Payne’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 64) is ADOPTED. (3) Teva’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 38) is DENIED.

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

Aralez Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al, No. 2:17-cv-00071 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2017).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_17-cv-00071-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_17-cv-00071-0

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.