SYNTHON IP V PFIZER, No. 07-1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1344 SYNTHON IP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Nichole W. Stafford, Wilson Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, of Austin, Texas, argued for plaintiff-appellant. On the brief were Jonathan G. Graves and John P. Moy, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, of Reston, Virginia; Michael A. Ladra and Terry Kearney, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, of Palo Alto, California; Of counsel was Nathan K. Cummings, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, of Reston, Virginia. Jack B. Blumenfield, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, of Wilmington, Delaware, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Maryellen Noreika, and James W. Parrett, Jr. Of counsel was John F. Anderson, Troutman Sanders LLP, of McLean, Virginia; and Derek J. Fahnestock, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, of Wilmigton. Appealed from: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Judge Thomas Selby Ellis, III NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1344 SYNTHON IP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in case no. 1:05-CV-1267, Judge Thomas Selby Ellis, III. __________________________ DECIDED: June 17, 2008 __________________________ Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge and DYK, Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM. The court, having considered the submissions and oral arguments of the parties, and having considered the record before and judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, holds that the findings of inequitable conduct and exceptional case, and the award of attorney fees are affirmed. circumstances, we need not reach the issues of infringement and validity. Under these

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.