Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E.D. Tex.

Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc, No. 2:09-cv-00097 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2010)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:09-cv-00097, Dkt. No. 55
Decided
January 5, 2010
Judge
T. John Ward, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER - The Court is of the opinion that striking Allergans jury demand at this time is premature. Sandozs motion is therefore DENIEd
Length
2 pages

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.

Pending before the court is Defendant Sandoz Inc.’s (“Sandoz”) Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Jury Demand. [Dkt. No. 34] Having considered the parties’ motions and arguments, the Court is of the opinion that the motion should be DENIED. Plaintiff Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”) brought this action is response to Sandoz’s submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“AND A”) for approval of a generic version of Allergan’s COMBIGAN drug.