The court granted plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's invalidity defense where defendant pled that plaintiff failed to "comply with one or more of the provisions of the United States Code, including, but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112." "[T]he affirmative defense for 'invalidity' is insufficient, because there exist several distinct theories of 'invalidity.'. . . This affirmative defense would probably be sufficient with respect to sections 101, 103, and 112 of the Patent Act if it were pled in the conjunctive (so that [plaintiff] was on fair notice that it had to prepare to meet each of these defenses and would not waste its time preparing to meet some defenses that defendant does not intent to assert), but it is pled in the disjunctive, and even if pled in the conjunctive it would not be sufficient with respect to section 102, which alone contains several distinct theories of invalidity."
Ferring B.V. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., 3-11-cv-00481 (NVD February 24, 2012, Order) (Jones, J.)