Further to our update yesterday on the Amgen v. Hospira litigation, the parties in the case filed several additional motions yesterday.

Following its filing of a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) last month, Hospira has now filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) asking the Court to set aside the jury verdict and find that the accused batches manufactured by Hospira are protected under the § 271(e)(1) safe harbor, the asserted claims of the  ’298 patents are not infringed, the asserted claims of the ’298 patent are invalid, and damages can be no greater than $1.5 million per batch, if sold.  In the alternative, Hospira moved for a new trial and/or reduction of the damages award pursuant to Rule 59.  Hospira’s brief in support of its Rule 50(b) motion can be found here.

Amgen also filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) that Hospira infringed claims 1-7 of the ‘349 patent, having moved for such judgment under Rule 50(a) during trial before the case was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict of non-infringement of the ‘349 patent claims. In the alternative, Amgen requests a new trial on infringement of the ‘349 claims.  A copy of Amgen’s opening brief in support of its motion can be found here.

Finally, Amgen filed a motion for prejudgment and post-judgment interest, asking the Court to award prejudgment interest to Amgen in the amount of $10,018,006 plus additional interest until final judgment is entered, and post-judgment interest on the amount of the judgment beginning on the date the Court enters final judgment until Hospira pays Amgen.

Stay tuned to the Big Molecule Watch for further coverage of this case.