Apotex Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.

Federal Circuit

Apotex Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.

500 F. App'x 959

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit·Decided April 8, 2013·No. No. 2012-1417·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s judgments of invalidity and unenforceability with respect to Cephalon, Inc.’s (“Cephalon”) U.S. Reissue Patent No. 37,516. We do so with the understanding that the court’s inequitable conduct finding was based on the conduct of Dr. Peter Grebow and Mr. Richard Burgoon, while acting within the course and scope of their employment or as officers and/or employees of Cephalon. No pleading asserted that Mr. Paul T. Clark committed inequitable conduct, and we do not read the opinion below as finding that he personally committed inequitable conduct.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s judgments of invalidity and unenforceability with respect to Cephalon, Inc.’s (“Cephalon”) U.S. Reissue Patent No. 37,516. We do so with the understanding that the court’s inequitable conduct finding was based on the conduct of Dr. Peter Grebow and Mr. Richard Burgoon, while acting within the course and scope of their employment or as officers and/or employees of Cephalon. No pleading asserted that Mr. Paul T. Clark committed inequitable conduct, and we do not read the opinion below as finding that he personally committed inequitable conduct.

AFFIRMED

Apotex Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc., 500 F. App'x 959 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Pincite

500 F. App'x 959 (Apotex Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related