Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly and Company et al, No. 2:15-cv-01202 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2016)

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 two motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants : a motion for summary judgment of non- infringement, Dkt. No. 119, and a motion for partial summary judgment that claims 1 and 3 of the ’124 patent are invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1, Dkt. No. 120. Following a hearing on June 23, 2016, the Court entered an order construing several disputed terms of the ’124 patent. Dkt. No.