Legal Opinion

Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.

District Court, D. Delaware

Decided January 12, 2017No. Civil Action No. 15-839-RGAPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ANDREWS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Presently before me is the issue of claim construction of multiple terms in U.S. Patent No. 5,856,298 (“the ’298 patent”). The ’298 patent generally relates to eryth-ropoietin (“EPO”) isoforms. I have considered the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Brief. (D.I. 104). I held a Markman hearing on September 21, 2016. I have also considered the parties’ supplemental letters submitted after the Markman. (D.I. 138; D.I. 144-45). On November 30, 2016, I resolved several threshold issues and invited the parties to submit additional letters if…

2Cases cited13 opinions

MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
Renishaw Plc v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni and Marposs CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2015

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

Wash. Research Found. v. SanofiDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2018