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. Lupin Ltd. et al, No. 2:11-cv-00530 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2013)

Claims Construed
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:11-cv-00530, Dkt. No. 124
Decided
August 21, 2013
Judge
See opinion
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - The Court adopts the constructions set forth in this opinion for the disputed terms of the 338 and 982 patents. There are no disputed terms for the 215 patent. Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this M…
Length
27 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.

Before the Court are Plaintiff Allergan Sales, LLC’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 107), Defendants’ response (Dkt. No. 112), and Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. No. 116), concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 8,008,338 (“the ‘338 patent), 8,207,215 (“the ‘215 patent”); and 8,377,982 (“the ‘982 patent”). The Court held a hearing on August 6, 2013. 2 I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges infringement of the ‘338, ‘215, and ‘982 patents by Defendants through their manufacture and sale of generic versions of Plaintiff’s Acular LS® product.