JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MYLAN INC., 10-6018 (SRC). (2012)
Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
Number: infdco20120203988
Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 02, 2012
Summary: OPINION & ORDER STANLEY R. CHESLER, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the applications by Plaintiff Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Janssen") and Defendants Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Famy Care Ltd. (collectively, "Mylan") for claim construction to resolve disputes over the construction of claim terms in U.S. Patent No. 6,214,815 (the "'815 patent"). The threshold question in considering these applications is whether there is a dispute to decide. Janssen c
Summary: OPINION & ORDER STANLEY R. CHESLER, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the applications by Plaintiff Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Janssen") and Defendants Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Famy Care Ltd. (collectively, "Mylan") for claim construction to resolve disputes over the construction of claim terms in U.S. Patent No. 6,214,815 (the "'815 patent"). The threshold question in considering these applications is whether there is a dispute to decide. Janssen co..
More
OPINION & ORDER
STANLEY R. CHESLER, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the applications by Plaintiff Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Janssen") and Defendants Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Famy Care Ltd. (collectively, "Mylan") for claim construction to resolve disputes over the construction of claim terms in U.S. Patent No. 6,214,815 (the "'815 patent").
The threshold question in considering these applications is whether there is a dispute to decide. Janssen contends that there is no dispute for this Court to decide. Mylan contends that there is a dispute — but their 22 pages of briefing sheds no light on what that dispute is. Mylan's briefs assert Defendants' proposed constructions — but nothing before this Court identifies any alternative construction. Mylan's opening brief asserts that claim construction is needed because "[t]here are practical consequences in this case" — yet does not illuminate those practical consequences.
If there is a dispute here, the parties have failed to illuminate it sufficiently to allow the Court to recognize it. The applications for claim construction are denied.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
