Merck loses to Amneal at CAFC in mometasone furoate monohydrate [Nasonex] case

This case, arising on appeal of a decision by Judge Robinson in D. Delaware, is strongly related to a case arising in D. New Jersey, and also appealed to the CAFC [2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83414; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Apotex Inc., 517 F. App’x 939 (Fed. Cir. 2013). ]There is a lot to discuss.For starters, there was an appeal of a discovery ruling. This included the textFollowing two discovery hearings on the issue, thedistrict court became aware of Amneal’s discovery violationand acknowledged that ideally Amneal should haveproduced samples of the Day 4 and A Batches. Thedistrict court determined, however, that it did not haveenough information at the time to determine whether theDay 4 and A Batch samples were materially differentfrom the Day 1 Batch samples. The district court concludedthat it was “not persuaded sitting right here thatmixing [] makes a substantive difference, and if it doesn’t,then it doesn’t matter that Amneal…

Read more detail on Recent Intellectual Property Law posts –

This entry was posted in Intellectual Property and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply