Apotex, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc

Federal Circuit

Apotex, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc

125 F. App'x 987

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 2005

Docket2004-1463

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 125 F. App'x 987 (Apotex, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Apotex, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc, 125 F. App'x 987 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively “Apotex”) appeal the judgment of the district court, which dismissed Apotex’s declaratory judgment action for lack of jurisdiction. Torpharm, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 03-CV-990, 2004 WL 1465756 (D.Del. June 28, 2004). Because Apotex’s appeal is moot, we vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss.

Less than one week before oral argument, Pfizer covenanted not to sue Apotex for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,743,-450. A covenant not to sue, such as that provided by Pfizer, moots an action for declaratory judgment. See Amana Refrigeration, Inc. v. Quadlux, Inc., 172 F.3d 852, 855 (Fed.Cir.1999) (“[A] covenant not to sue ... is sufficient to divest a trial court of jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action.”). As a result, the judgment and opinion of the district court are vacated and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 23, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994) (“[V]acatur must be granted where mootness results from the unilateral action of the party who prevailed in the lower court.”); Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1340 (11th Cir.2001); Mayfield v. Dalton, 109 F.Sd 1423, 1427 (9th Cir.1997).

COSTS

Apotex shall have its costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively “Apotex”) appeal the judgment of the district court, which dismissed Apotex’s declaratory judgment action for lack of jurisdiction. Torpharm, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 03-CV-990, 2004 WL 1465756 (D.Del. June 28, 2004). Because Apotex’s appeal is moot, we vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss.

Less than one week before oral argument, Pfizer covenanted not to sue Apotex for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,743,-450. A covenant not to sue, such as that provided by Pfizer, moots an action for declaratory judgment. See Amana Refrigeration, Inc. v. Quadlux, Inc., 172 F.3d 852, 855 (Fed.Cir.1999) (“[A] covenant not to sue ... is sufficient to divest a trial court of jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action.”). As a result, the judgment and opinion of the district court are vacated and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 23, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994) (“[V]acatur must be granted where mootness results from the unilateral action of the party who prevailed in the lower court.”); Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1340 (11th Cir.2001); Mayfield v. Dalton, 109 F.Sd 1423, 1427 (9th Cir.1997).

COSTS

Apotex shall have its costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 F. App'x 987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/apotex-inc-v-pfizer-inc-cafc-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack