Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. et al, No. 3:2008cv00116 - Document 222 (D. Nev. 2010)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER : ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Judgment be entered in favor of Duramed and against Watson on Duramed's claim for acts of infringement of the '969 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271; and it is further ORDERED AND AD JUDGED that Judgment be entered for Duramed and against Watson on all of Watson's counterclaims alleging non-infringement and invalidity of claims of the '969 patent; and it is further ORDERED that, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A), the effective date of any approval of Watson's ANDA No. 78-834 be the date of expiration of the '969 patent; the foregoing not preventing the FDA from reviewing, processing and giving tentative, but not final, approval of the ANDA includin g during the pendency of any appeal; and it is further ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B), Watson and its affiliates, their respective officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them are permanently enjoined from engaging in the manufacture, use, offer to sell, or sale within the United States, or importation into the United States, of any product covered by, or the use of which is covered by, the '969 patent for the term of that patent, except as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 4/26/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 DURAMED PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 17 ) ) ) Case No: 3:08-cv-116-LRH-RAM ) FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER ) ) vs. WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) This matter comes before the Court upon the Complaint of Plaintiff 18 Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Duramed,” now known as Teva Women’s Health, 19 Inc.) alleging that Defendant Watson Laboratories, Inc. (“Watson”) has infringed 20 United States Patent No. 7,320,969 (“the ‘969 patent”) by filing its Abbreviated New 21 Drug Application No. 78-834 (“ANDA”) seeking approval from the United States 22 Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) to engage in the commercial manufacture, use 23 and sale of a generic version of Duramed’s Seasonique® product. Watson asserted 24 counterclaims that the ‘969 patent was either not infringed or invalid. 25 Watson subsequently stipulated (#94) for purposes of this litigation 26 that its filing of ANDA No. 78-834 and the use of products made pursuant to that 27 ANDA would infringe claims 1-9, 15 and 17-19 of the ‘969 patent to the extent 28 I IR\ ATTORNFYS AT LAW 00 RANK OF AMERICA PLAZA 00 SOUTH FOURTH STREET LAS VEGAS. NEVAOA 8910 i02Z4749400 FAX 702,474-9422 I those claims are found valid and enforceable. On March 31, 2010, this Court Dockets.Justia.com 6 1 granted Duramed’s motion for summary judgment (#175) that the 969 patent is 2 not invalid as obvious under 35 US.C. 3 accordingly (#215). Watson has raised no other defenses relating to the validity or 4 enforceability of any of claims 1-9, 15 and 17-19 of the ‘969 patent. § 103 (#214) and entered Judgment 5 For the reasons set forth in the Courts March 31, 2010 Order, it is, 6 ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Judgment be entered in favor of 7 Duramed and against Watson on Duramed’s claim for acts of infringement of the 8 ‘969 patent under 35 U.S.C. 9 § 271; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Judgment be entered for 10 Duramed and against Watson on all of Watson’s counterclaims alleging 11 noninfringement and invalidity of claims of the ‘969 patent; and it is further 12 ORDERED that, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A), the effective date of 13 any approval of Watson’s ANDA No. 78-834 be the date of expiration of the ‘969 14 patent; the foregoing not preventing the FDA from reviewing, processing and 15 giving tentative, but not final, approval of the ANDA including during the 16 pendency of any appeal; and it is further 17 ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B), Watson and its 18 affiliates, their respective officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and 19 those persons in active concert or participation with them are permanently 20 enjoined from engaging in the manufacture, use, offer to sell, or sale within the 21 United States, or importation into the United States, of any product covered by, or 22 the use of which is covered by, the ‘969 patent for the term of that patent, except as 23 provided in 35 U.S.C. 24 § 271(e)(1). IT IS HEREBY SO ORDERED.this 26th day of April, 2010. 25 26 27 28 \1ORRI PT H RsO\ AT IOBNFYS AT LAW TO BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA OO SOUTH FOURTH STREET LAS VEGAS NEVADA 89101 702 474 9400 FAX 70? 474 9422 LARRY R. HICKS ________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED:_______________________

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.