Legal Opinion
Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd.
District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Decided July 5, 1996No. 5:94-cv-00527PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
TERRENCE WILLIAM BOYLE, District Judge.
Introduction
Plaintiffs Glaxo Inc. and Glaxo Group Limited (singularly “Glaxo”), located in North Carolina and the United Kingdom, develop and manufacture ethical drugs. Among Glaxo’s products is the anti-ulcer drug “Zan-tac.” The active ingredient in Zantac is the aminoalkyl furan derivative ranitidine hydrochloride, the subject of Glaxo’s United States Patents Nos. 4,128,658 (“the ’658 patent”), 4,521,431 (“the ’431 patent”), and 4,672,133 (“the ’133 patent”).
Salts such as ranitidine hydrochloride may take several different crystalline structures,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Robert Conroy v. Reebok International, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Atlas Powder Company v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company and Alamo Explosives Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Krawiec v. ManlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 2018
- Glaxo, Inc., and Glaxo Group Limited v. Novopharm, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- Combs & Associates, Inc. v. KennedyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
- Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Limelight Networks, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2009
- Rhone-Poulenc Agro, S.A. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.