Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.

2 Citing cases

  1. Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.

    684 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 111 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presumption of validity needs to be overcome by clear and convincing evidence

    We vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded it to the district court because the “district court's order imposing the preliminary injunction failed to even address Lupin's obviousness arguments.” Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., No. 2012–1118, 2012 U.S.App. LEXIS 2442, at *2 (Fed.Cir. Feb. 6, 2012). In particular, we noted that the “district court did not make any findings of fact or any conclusions of law regarding Lupin's obviousness arguments.”

  2. Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.

    Civil No. 09-0037 (RBK/JS) (D. Del. Feb. 14, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    This matter comes before the Court on remand from the Federal Circuit's Order of February 6, 2012, which vacated this Court's December 6, 2011 Order and remanded for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. Sciele v. Lupin, No. 2012-1118 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2012) (order vacating this Court's preliminary injunction Order). The December 6, 2011 Order and accompanying Opinion ("Preliminary Injunction Opinion") granted the motion of Shionogi Pharma Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "Shionogi") for preliminary relief enjoining Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Lupin") from importing a pharmaceutical product—a generic version of Plaintiff's Fortamet®—into the United States, and/or selling that generic product.