Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Abbott Laboratories v. TorPharm, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided October 11, 2007No. 2007-1019Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDyk, Circuit Judge
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the original injunction did not bar TorPharm, Inc., Apotex, Inc., and Apotex Corporation (collectively, “Apotex”) from filing a new ANDA, and that the district court could not properly find Apotex in contempt. Maj. Op. at 1381-83. In my view, since there was a “fair ground of doubt” from the outset as to whether the injunction applied, it necessarily follows that contempt proceedings were inappropriate. However, the majority reaches the puzzling conclusion that proceedings in contempt were nonetheless permissible, and that the district court could…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- California Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. MolitorSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Preemption Devices, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- Abbott Laboratories v. Apotex, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2006