Legal Opinion
Smithkline Beecham Corporation and Beecham Group, P.L.C. v. Apotex Corp., Apotex, Inc., and Torpharm, Inc., Defendants-Cross
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided April 23, 2004No. 03-1285, 03-1313PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RADER, Circuit Judge.
Following a bench trial, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois determined that the pa-roxetine hydrochloride anhydrate product produced by Apotex Corp., Apotex, Inc., and TorPharm, Inc. (collectively Apotex) will not infringe claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 4,721,723 owned by SmithKline Beecham Corp. and Beecham Group, P.L.C. (collectively SmithKline). SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 247 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1052 (N.D.Ill.2003). Claim 1 of the '723 patent recites, in its entirety, “Crystalline paroxetine hydrochloride hemihydrate.” Upon…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Innova/pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc. (Doing Business as Safari Outdoor Products)Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- In re Niaspan Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
- In re TaborUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 2018
- In re Kimball Hill, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 2019
- SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.