Summary
Copying was established where "Teva could have developed its own solution using different excipients, but instead chose to reverse engineer Dey's formulation based on Dey's patents. This provides a strong indication that the prior art provided Teva with no obvious alternative to Dey's invention."
Summary of this case from Janssen Pharm. v. Teva Pharm. U.S.Opinion
2014-1434
04-17-2015
DEY LP, NKA MYLAN SPECIALTY, L.P., DEY INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., Defendants-Appellants
EVAN CHESLER, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by DAVID GREENWALD, DAVID R. MARRIOTT, ROGER BROOKS. BRUCE M. GAGALA, Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd, Chicago, IL, argued for defendants-appellants. Also represented by DAVID RYAN VAN BUSKIRK, JEFFREY B. BURGAN; ELIZABETH CROMPTON, Washington, DC.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia in No. 1:09-cv-00087-IMK, Judge Irene M. Keeley.
JUDGMENT
EVAN CHESLER, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by DAVID GREENWALD, DAVID R. MARRIOTT, ROGER BROOKS. BRUCE M. GAGALA, Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd, Chicago, IL, argued for defendants-appellants. Also represented by DAVID RYAN VAN BUSKIRK, JEFFREY B. BURGAN; ELIZABETH CROMPTON, Washington, DC. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, PLAGER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges).
AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT April 17, 2015
Date
/s/ Daniel E. O'Toole
Daniel E. O'Toole
Clerk of Court