Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Exela Pharma Sciences LLC, No. 14-1184 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 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, Exela PharmSci Inc., Exela Holdings, Inc. and Exela Pharm Sciences, LLC (collectively “Exela”) appeal the district court’s constru c- tion of certain claim terms of U.S. Patent s No. 6,028,222 (the “’222 patent”) and No. 6,992,218 (the “’218 patent”) , Cadence Pharm., Inc. v. Paddock Labs. Inc. , 886 F. Supp. 2d 445 (D. Del. 2012), and its rulings that Exela infringed certain asserted claims of both patents and failed to prove invalidity as to the ’218 patent. Cadence Pharm., Inc. v. Exela Pharma Sci s., LLC , No.