Facts

1. Wyeth LLC sued AstraZeneca for patent infringement of the '314 and '162 patents regarding treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [lines="1-3"].
2. The patents claim methods to treat g/e resistant NSCLC, stating that conventional reversible inhibitors ineffectively address certain resistant cancer forms [lines="42-46"].
3. AstraZeneca promoted its drug Tagrisso for treatment, leading to a jury trial resulting in a finding of induced infringement [lines="7-8"].
4. Following the jury trial, AstraZeneca raised defenses claiming the patents were invalid due to indefiniteness and sought relief based on allegations of Wyeth's misconduct [lines="10-11", "108-110"].
5. The Court conducted a subsequent bench trial addressing AstraZeneca’s equitable defenses and claims [lines="13-15"].

Issues

1. Are the patents enforceable, or do they suffer from unclean hands due to Wyeth's alleged misconduct regarding FDA listings? [lines="108-109"].
2. Is there sufficient evidence to support an implied waiver of Wyeth's right to enforce the patents by not timely listing them? [lines="366-368"].
3. Has AstraZeneca established that the patents are unenforceable due to patent misuse? [lines="438-439"].
4. Are the asserted claims invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)? [lines="578-579"].

Holdings

1. The patents are enforceable; Wyeth's alleged misconduct does not relate to the matter at hand, failing to establish unclean hands [lines="364-364"].
2. There is no implied waiver of the right to enforce the patents, as AstraZeneca did not show how Wyeth's conduct led to a reasonable belief that the enforcement rights were relinquished [lines="435-436"].
3. AstraZeneca failed to provide adequate evidence for a claim of patent misuse; the Court did not find Wyeth’s actions unlawful under patent law [lines="482-485"].
4. The asserted claims are not indefinite; the language and context provide reasonable certainty about the scope of the claims [lines="1204-1205"].