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. et al, No. 2:12-cv-00207 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2013)

Claims Construed
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:12-cv-00207, Dkt. No. 171
Decided
September 5, 2013
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Length
24 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. 113), Defendants’ Response (Dkt. No. 127), and Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. No. 139), concerning the ’890 patent. Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s Op ening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 145), Defendants’ Response (Dkt. No. 148), and Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. No. 151), concerning the ’409 patent. The Court held a hearing on June 28, 2013. 2 I.