APOTEX, INC. v. CEPHALON, INC. et al

Filing 547

ORDER THAT DEFT CEPHALON, INC'S MOTION TO PRECLIUDE (DOC #465) IS DENIED AS MOOT. DEFT CEPHALON, INC'S MOTION FOR AN ADVERSE INFERENCE (DOC #468) AND (DOC#470) ARE DENIED; AND JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLFF, APOTEX, INC. AS TO COUNT I II OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC #195), ETC. ( SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 3/28/12. ) 3/29/12 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(gn, ) Modified on 3/29/2012 (gn, ). Modified on 3/29/2012 (afm, ). (DUPLICATE FILING OF ORDER #546)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA __________________________________________ : APOTEX, INC., : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 2:06-cv-2768 : CEPHALON, INC., et al., : Defendants. : __________________________________________: ORDER AND JUDGMENT AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 2012, following a bench trial, and after careful review of the parties’ briefs, for the reasons set out in the Memorandum Opinion filed this day, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendant Cephalon, Inc.’s “Motion to Preclude Certain Expert Testimony of Dr. David Beach” (Doc. No. 465) is DENIED as MOOT; 2. Defendant Cephalon, Inc.’s Motion for An Adverse Inference (Doc. No. 468), and Apotex, Inc.’s “Motion to Exclude Cephalon, Inc.’s Expert Reports and Testimony Regarding Testing on Modafinil Tablets” (Doc. No. 470) are DENIED; and 3. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff, Apotex, Inc., as to Count III of the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 195). The Court finds that the manufacture, sale or use of the modafinil product described in Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 77-667 will NOT INFRINGE United States Reissue Patent Number RE 37,516. BY THE COURT: /s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg _____________________________ MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.

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?