Insite Vision Incorporated v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 14-1065 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2015)

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

In this Hatch -Waxman Act litigation, Sandoz, Inc. (“Sandoz”) appeals the district court’s decision in Insite Vision, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc, No. 11-3080, 2013 WL 5975015 (D.N.J. Oct. 4, 2013), which held that Sandoz had not shown that the claims of U.S. Patent s No. 6,861,411 (the “’411 patent”); No. 6,239,113 ( the “’113 patent”); No. 6,569,443 (the “’443 patent”); and No. 7,056,893 (the “’893 patent”) (collectively “the patents -in-suit”) asserted by Insite Vis ion, Inc. (“Insite”); Inspire Pharm., Inc. (“In- spire”); and Pfizer, Inc.