Court Opinion

ID: 857461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-04-08 15:31:50.114369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:10.830708
License: Public Domain

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                ______________________

                    APOTEX INC.,
                   Plaintiff-Appellee,

                           v.

                 CEPHALON, INC.,
                 Defendant-Appellant,

                          AND

     BARR LABORATORIES, INC., MYLAN
LABORATORIES, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
 INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
USA, INC., RANBAXY LABORATORIES, LTD., AND
     RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
                   Defendants.
             ______________________

                      2012-1417
                ______________________

   Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania in No. 06-CV-2768,
Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg.
                 ______________________

                Decided: April 8, 2013
                ______________________
2                             APOTEX, INC.   v. CEPHALON, INC.

   ROBERT B. BREISBLATT, Katten Muchin Rosenman,
LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for plaintiff-appellee.
With him on the brief were BRIAN J. SODIKOFF, MARTIN S.
MASAR, III and CHRISTINE E. BESTOR; HOWARD R. RUBIN
and CHRISTOPHER D. JACKSON, of Washington, DC.

    WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr, LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, argued for defend-
ant-appellant. With him on the brief were MARK C.
FLEMING, GREGORY P. TERAN, DANIEL M. ESRICK, and
ANDREW J. DANFORD; WILLIAM G. MCELWAIN, and
CAROLYN JACOBS CHACHKIN, of Washington, DC; ROBERT
J. GUNTHER, JR. and OMAR KHAN, of New York, New York.
                 ______________________

    Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE, and O'MALLEY,
                     Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
    We affirm the trial court’s judgments of invalidity and
unenforceability with respect to Cephalon, Inc.’s (“Cepha-
lon”) U.S. Reissue Patent No. 37,516. We do so with the
understanding that the court’s inequitable conduct find-
ing was based on the conduct of Dr. Peter Grebow and Mr.
Richard Burgoon, while acting within the course and
scope of their employment or as officers and/or employees
of Cephalon. No pleading asserted that Mr. Paul T. Clark
committed inequitable conduct, and we do not read the
opinion below as finding that he personally committed
inequitable conduct.
                      AFFIRMED