Plaintiff's renewed motion for a preliminary injunction precluding defendant "from launching in the United States its generic raloxifene product" was granted where defendant conceded infringement but contested validity and enforceability. Defendant "failed to raise a 'substantial question' of invalidity on the basis of obviousness" in part because "[the prior art references] were all considered by the PTO during prosecution." Likewise, defendant's "efforts to raise a substantial question as to enablement have fallen short" and defendant's evidence of inequitable conduct provided an "insufficient basis to satisfy the threshold requirement for establishing . . . deceptive intent."
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., 1-06-cv-01017 (INSD April 22, 2009, Order)
No comments:
Post a Comment