Asserted Claims Are Not Anticipated But Are Obvious

Morris James LLP
Contact

Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V.  v. Warner Chilcott Company, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 13-2088 – GMS, August 26, 2016.

Sleet, J. Court issues post-trial rulings regarding validity of the patent-in-suit and Rule 52(c) motions.

The disputed technology relates to ethinyl estradiol and etonogestral vaginal ring used for contraception.  The bench trial took place from January 19 through 22, 2016. The asserted claims are not invalid due to anticipation.  The asserted claims are invalid as obvious.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morris James LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Morris James LLP
Contact
more
less

Morris James LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide