Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Grunenthal GmbH, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Actavis Inc., Actavis South Atlantic LLC, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, ThoRx Laboratories, Inc., Barr Laboratories, Inc., Ranbaxy, Inc., Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Impax Laboratories, Inc., Defendants-Appellants
ON MOTION
ORDER
In this action, Grünenthal GmbH appealed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York’s judgments related to Grünenthal’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,114,383 and 8,309,060. We initially granted Grünenthal’s motion to stay its appeals, pending two specific actions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that Grünenthal argued were likely to moot its appeals. See generally Docket Nos. 197, 203, 230. Grünenthal then moved to extend the stay, reasoning that neither of those actions had materialized. See generally Docket No. 230. We exercised our discretion to lift the stay, then dismissed Grünenthal’s appeals without prejudice. See Endo Pharm. Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., ––– F. App’x ––––,––––, No. 2015-2021, 2018 WL 2230923, at *1 n.1 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2018).
Grünenthal now moves to: (1) vacate the district court’s judgments deciding issues related to its two patents; and (2) remand to the court with instructions to dismiss all claims and defenses related to those patents consistent with vacatur. See generally Docket No. 233. Grünenthal also conditionally moves to extend the dead-line to file its petition for panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc. See generally Docket Nos. 239, 242. Kashiv Pharma, LLC, not a party to the appeals, moves for leave to intervene to oppose Grünenthal’s motion for vacatur. See generally Docket No. 237.
Upon consideration thereof,
It Is Ordered That:
(1) We vacate our dismissal of Grünenthal’s appeals and reinstate them.
(2) We remand the appeals to the district court for the limited purpose of its consideration of Grünenthal’s motion for vacatur. We retain jurisdiction so that any of the parties may seek appellate review by notifying the Clerk of the Court within thirty days of entry of the district court’s decision on remand. Grünenthal’s appeals are held in abeyance pending the resolution of its motion for vacatur by the district court.
(3) We deny Grünenthal’s conditional motions and Kashiv’s motion.
Per Curiam.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2015-2021, 2015-2022, 2015-2023, 2015-2024, 2015-2025, 2015-2026, 2015-2028, 2015-2031, 2015-2033, 2015-2034, 2015-2035, 2015-2041, 2015-2042, 2015-2046, 2015-2047, 2015-2049, 2015-2059, 2015-2060, 2016-1025, 2016-1060, 2016-1117, 2016-1118
Decided: June 29, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)