Claims are construed and judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs in ANDA case
Cephalon, Inc. and Cima Labs, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 09-724-SLR, Civ. No. 08-330SLR March 24, 2011.
Robinson, J. Judgment in favor of plaintiffs is entered on No. 09-724. Defendants’ motion to strike expert testimony is denied in part and denied in part as moot. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ notice of subsequent authority is denied as moot. Defendants’ motion to vacate the 10/28/10 order staying launch of generic drug is denied. The court construes three disputed terms. Judgment in favor of defendants is entered in No. 08-330 in a separate opinion.
The disputed technology is the generic version of Fentora (fentanyl buccal). Trial was held in May, 2010. The court finds that the balance tips in favor of plaintiffs on the issue of whether the ANDA product contains a solid solution, and finds plaintiffs have proved infringement of 4 claims of the ‘981 patent. The court rejects the argument that the claims are obvious, noting a failure to proffer a motivation to combine and failure to establish the prior art provides a product containing a solid solution, such as required for inherency. The court concurrently enters judgment for Watson on other patents addressed in a memorandum opinion in Civ. No. 08-330.
