Horizon Medicines LLC v. Alkem Labs. Ltd.

1 Citing case

  1. Orexo AB v. Sun Pharm. Indus.

    Civil Action 3:20-cv-12588 (GC) (DEA) (D.N.J. Jul. 12, 2023)   1 Legal Analyses

    However, even if Sun is correct in their argument that four (4) out of the nine (9) tablets tested by Mr. Greene do not show a pH timing effect, the Court is persuaded that Orexo's showing five of (5) out of nine (9) tablets indicated a pH timing effect is probative of a finding of infringement.See Horizon Medicines LLC v. Alkem Lab'ys Ltd., 503 F.Supp.3d 118, 155 (D. Del. 2020), aff'd, Civ No. 2021-1480, 2021 WL 5315424 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2021) (finding that the defendant's argument that because a majority - twenty-seven out of thirty-six - of the tablets did not meet the limitation, the plaintiff has not met its burden to prove infringement of that limitation unpersuasive); see also Kaneka Corp. v. SKC Kolon PI, Inc., 198 F.Supp.3d 1089, 1119 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize- Products, Co., 840 F.2d 902, 911 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (stating “[a] patentee can prove infringement by showing that just ‘some samples' or even ‘a sample' of the product is found to meet all the limitations of a patent's claims.”).