Schering Corp. v. Taro Pharmaceutical USA, Inc.

68 F. App'x 967
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedJuly 2, 2003
DocketNos. 03-1026, 03-1029, 03-1028
StatusPublished

This text of 68 F. App'x 967 (Schering Corp. v. Taro Pharmaceutical USA, 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
Schering Corp. v. Taro Pharmaceutical USA, Inc., 68 F. App'x 967 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Opinion

ON MOTION

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Schering Corporation moves without opposition (1) to dismiss 03-1028, (2) to vacate the September 19, 2002 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey declaring invalid Claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 4,569,-716 in district court docket no. 01-6175 and (3) for a remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss as moot all of Schering’s claims and McNeil Consumer Healthcare et al.’s (McNeil) defenses and counterclaims.

Schering states that it filed suit against McNeil for infringement of the ’716 patent after McNeil submitted New Drug Application (NDA) 21-339 to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Schering states that McNeil recently withdrew NDA 21-339 from consideration by the FDA, rendering Schering’s action against McNeil moot. Schering states that it “was not involved in McNeil’s withdrawal decision and had no input regarding its occurrence or timing.”

Because the case has become moot through no voluntary action by Schering, it is appropriate to vacate the district court’s judgment. See United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950). See also U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994). However, we note that the district court judgment in appeals 03-1026, -1029 remains and that the appeals of that judgment are going forward.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Schering’s motion to dismiss 03-1028 is denied.

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

Related

United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.
340 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 F. App'x 967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schering-corp-v-taro-pharmaceutical-usa-inc-cafc-2003.