Summary
refusing to give much weight to any lost exclusivity beyond the statutorily guaranteed 180 days because any further time was not contemplated or guaranteed by the Hatch-Waxman scheme
Summary of this case from PAR Pharms., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc.Opinion
C.A. No. 09-184-GMS-LPS.
June 28, 2010
Jack B. Blumenfield and Maryellen Noreika, Morris, Nickols, Arsht Tunnell LLP, wilmington, De, Gerald J. Fiattmann, Jr. and christine Willgoos, Kirkland Ellis LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Richard L. Horwitz and David E. Moore, Potter Anderson Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE, Roger J. Chin of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, San Francisco, CA, Ron E. Shulman, Terry Kearney, Dieter H. Hellmoldt, and Mathew A. Argenti, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati, Palo Alto, CA, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
At Wilmington, this 28th day of June 2010, for the reasons discussed in the Memorandum Opinion issued this date;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction (D.I. 87) is GRANTED.
2. The parties shall submit, within three (3) days of this Order, a proposed form of Order consistent with and giving effect to the rulings set forth in the Memorandum Opinion issued this date.