U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2013

Apotex Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.

Apotex Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided April 8, 2013 · Lourie, Malley, Rader
500 F. App'x 959

Counsel

Robert B. Breisblatt, Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, of Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Brian J. Sodikoff, Martin S. Masar, III and Christine E. Bestor; Howard R. Rubin and Christopher D. Jackson, of Washington, DC., William F. Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, of Boston, MA, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Mark C. Fleming, Gregory P. Teran, Daniel M. Esrick, and Andrew J. Danford; William G. McElwain, and Carolyn Jacobs Chachkin, of Washington, DC; Robert J. Gunther, Jr. and Omar Khan, of New York, New York.

Apotex Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s judgments of invalidity and unenforceability with respect to Cephalon, Inc.’s (“Cephalon”) U.S. Reissue Patent No. 37,516. We do so with the understanding that the court’s inequitable conduct finding was based on the conduct of Dr. Peter Grebow and Mr. Richard Burgoon, while acting within the course and scope of their employment or as officers and/or employees of Cephalon. No pleading asserted that Mr. Paul T. Clark committed inequitable conduct, and we do not read the opinion below as finding that he personally committed inequitable conduct.

AFFIRMED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.