You're viewing Docket Item 111 from the case Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 111 Filed 07/31/12 Page 1 of 2

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.
11-11681-NMG

Civil Action No.
10-12079-NMG

________________________________
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
SANDOZ INC.,

Plaintiffs,
v.

AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION
SYSTEMS, LTD., WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., WATSON
PHARMA, INC.
________________________________
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
and SANDOZ INC.,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs,
v.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
________________________________

Defendants.

GORTON, J.

ORDER

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

-1-

Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 111 Filed 07/31/12 Page 2 of 2

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.

Dated July 31, 2012

/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge

-2-