TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP et al v. PHARMACEUTICAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION et al

Filing 377

ORDER denying 320 Motion for Summary Judgment as moot ; denying 323 Motion for Summary Judgment as moot ; granting Mutual's 325 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 05/04/2010. (nr, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY __________________________________________ | TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP and | MALLINCKRODT INC., | | Plaintiffs, | | v. | | MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, | INC. and UNITED RESEARCH | LABORATORIES, INC., | | Defendants. | __________________________________________| CHESLER, U.S.D.J. This matter comes before the Court on five motions: 1) the motion for summary judgment of invalidity for improper inventorship and derivation by Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. and United Research Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, "Mutual"); 2) Mutual's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement; 3) Mutual's motion for summary judgment of obviousness; 4) the cross-motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity for improper inventorship and derivation by Plaintiffs Tyco Healthcare Group LP and Mallinckrodt Inc. (collectively, "Tyco"); and 5) Tyco's cross-motion for partial summary judgment of obviousness; and the Court having considered the parties' submissions; and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion, and good cause appearing IT IS on this 4th day of May, 2010, ORDERED that Mutual's motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 325) is GRANTED; and it is further Civil Action No. 07-1299 (SRC) ORDER ORDERED that the remaining motions and cross-motions for summary judgment (Docket Entry Nos. 320, 323, 340, and 346) are DENIED as moot; and it is further ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), U.S. Patent No. 5,211,954 is invalid for obviousness. s/ Stanley R. Chesler STANLEY R. CHESLER, U.S.D.J. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?