Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
December 11, 2019, Decided; December 11, 2019, Filed
Civil Action No. 17-205-CFC
[*373] MEMORANDUM OPINION
December 11, 2019
/s/ Colm F. Connolly
COLM F. CONNOLLY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs Orexo AB and Orexo US, Inc. (collectively, "Orexo") filed this Hatch-Waxman patent suit against Defendants Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (collectively, "Actavis"). Orexo alleged in its complaint that Actavis's generic versions of the anti-opioid-addiction drugs Suboxone® and Subutex® directly and indirectly infringed [**2] claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 8,454,996 (the "#996 patent"). D.I. 1. The Court held a five-day trial, after which the jury found that Actavis did not induce or contribute to infringement.1 D.I. 274. Consistent with the jury's verdict, this Court entered judgment for Actavis. D.I. 279.
Orexo has moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) for a new trial "on the issues of infringement, willfulness, [*374] and damages." D.I. 283. Orexo argues a new trial is warranted because (1) I erroneously precluded it from presenting at trial the fact that Judge Sue L. Robinson had ruled in a previous patent case (the "Zubsolv® case") that the #996 patent was not invalid and was infringed by a generic version of another anti-opioid-addiction drug, Zubsolv®, D.I. 284 at 3-10;2 and (2) I erroneously "excluded the introduction of Orexo's patents and published patent applications (other than the [#]996 patent)," id at 10, and "other publications," id. at 14.
A. Zubsolv®, Suboxone®, and Subutex®
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
424 F. Supp. 3d 371 *; 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213415 **; 2019 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 474442; 2019 WL 6728637
OREXO AB and OREXO US, INC., Plaintiffs, v. ACTAVIS ELIZABETH LLC, ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., Defendants.
Prior History: Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174588, 2017 WL 4535981 (D. Del., Oct. 10, 2017)
infringement, patent, invalidity, products, motion in limine, new trial, bioadhesive, pretrial ruling, willfulness, offer of proof, disclosures, generic, probative value, unfair prejudice, crospovidone, disintegrant, reconsider, technology, parties, reasons, argues, door, reconsideration, undisputed, outweighs, adducing, litigate, confuse, opened, motion for a new trial