MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 10-12079-NMG (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
Number: infdco20120801c08
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 31, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2012
Summary: ORDER NATHANIEL M. GORTON, District Judge. Plaintiffs' motion for clarification or modification of the order on claim construction (Docket No. 292 in the Amphastar action, and Docket No. 109 in the Teva action) is ALLOWED. As plaintiffs suggest, the Court intended to define the term "structural signature" according to the first part of the definition offered in the specification of the '886 patent. The omission of "e.g." in the definition listed in the Order portion of the Memorandum and Ord
Summary: ORDER NATHANIEL M. GORTON, District Judge. Plaintiffs' motion for clarification or modification of the order on claim construction (Docket No. 292 in the Amphastar action, and Docket No. 109 in the Teva action) is ALLOWED. As plaintiffs suggest, the Court intended to define the term "structural signature" according to the first part of the definition offered in the specification of the '886 patent. The omission of "e.g." in the definition listed in the Order portion of the Memorandum and Orde..
More
ORDER
NATHANIEL M. GORTON, District Judge.
Plaintiffs' motion for clarification or modification of the order on claim construction (Docket No. 292 in the Amphastar action, and Docket No. 109 in the Teva action) is ALLOWED. As plaintiffs suggest, the Court intended to define the term "structural signature" according to the first part of the definition offered in the specification of the '886 patent. The omission of "e.g." in the definition listed in the Order portion of the Memorandum and Order was inadvertent. Thus, "a structural signature" means
information regarding, e.g., the identity, number and physiochemical properties of the mono- and di-saccharide building blocks of a polysaccharide.
So ordered.
Source: Leagle
