Legal Opinion

Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co. v. Danbury Pharmacal, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided June 1, 1999No. 97 CIV. 3403 RO, 97 CIV. 8357 ROPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

OWEN, District Judge.

I presided over the trial here that lasted four days in April 1998. I found that the defendants willfully infringed the plaintiffs’ patent for famotidine in violation of the Hatch-Waxman Act, Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co. v. Danbury Pharmacal, Inc., 21 F.Supp.2d 366, 378 (S.D.N.Y.1998), familiarity with which is assumed. I found that this case constituted an “exceptional case” within the meaning of Section 285, and on that basis awarded attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs, in an amount to be determined. The parties have since submitted post-trial…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Missouri v. Jenkins Ex Rel. AgyeiSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Blanchard v. BergeronSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. New York State Association for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Hugh L. Carey, Individually and as Governor of the State of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
  5. Lam, Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corporation and Johns-Manville Sales CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In Re Enron Corp. SecuritiesDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2008
  2. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 2003
  3. Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AGDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2001
  4. Yurman Designs, Inc. v. PAJ, INC.District Court, S.D. New York · 2000
  5. Ulead Systems, Inc. v. Lex Computer & Management Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API