Genzyme Corporation, et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 13-1506 - GMS, May 11, 2016.

Sleet, J. The court issues findings of fact and conclusions of law and rules on post-trial motions. A 4-day trial took place between November 9-13, 2015.

The disputed product is generic forms of plerixafor, which is marketed as Mozobil®. The parties had previously stipulated to infringement. The court finds that defendants have not proven that the patents-in-suit is obvious. Defendants’ expert’s relevance analysis is colored by hindsight. Furthermore he relies on his own testing rather than prior art. Secondary considerations further support the conclusion of non-obviousness. The court enjoins defendants from commercially manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling or importing their generic versions prior to the expiration of the patent-in-suit.