Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Syngenta sued Willowood, a Hong Kong company that sells fungicide to its Oregon-based affiliate, for infringement of patents directed to a fungicide compound and its manufacturing processes and infringement of copyrights for detailed product labels that provide directions for use, storage, and disposal, plus first-aid instructions and environmental, physical, and chemical hazard warnings. The district court dismissed the copyright claims as precluded by the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 135 and granted-in-part Syngenta’s summary judgment motion with respect to patent infringement. After a jury trial, the court entered a defense judgment on the patent claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and vacated in part. The district court did not provide an adequate analysis of the potential conflict between FIFRA and the Copyright Act. Because FIFRA does not, on its face, require a “me-too” registrant to copy the label of a registered product, FIFRA only conflicts with the Copyright Act to the extent that some particular element of Syngenta’s label is both protected under copyright doctrines and necessary for the expedited approval of Willowood’s generic pesticide. The court erred by imposing a single-entity requirement on the performance of a patented process under 35 U.S.C. 271(g); practicing a patented process abroad does not trigger liability under section 271(g) in the same manner that practicing a patented process domestically does under section 271(a). View "Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Willowood, LLC" on Justia Law

Amgen’s patents relate to erythropoietin (EPO) isoforms and aspects of their production. EPO is a glycoprotein hormone that regulates red blood cell maturation and production. Recombinant human EPO is an important therapeutic protein for the treatment of anemia. Amgen manufactures and markets recombinant human EPO as Epogen. Hospira submitted its Biologics License Application (BLA) to the FDA, seeking approval for a biosimilar to Amgen’s Epogen product. Amgen sued Hospira for infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) and 271(e)(2)(C). A jury found the asserted claims not invalid and infringed. Of the 21 accused drug substance batches, the jury found seven batches entitled to the Safe Harbor defense. The jury awarded Amgen $70 million in damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the district court’s claim construction and finding substantial evidence of infringement. Section 271(e)(1) carves out a "Safe Harbor” exception to patent infringement liability when otherwise-infringing activities are solely for uses reasonably related to obtaining FDA approval. Substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that the 14 batches at issue were not manufactured “solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information” to the FDA. View "Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc." on Justia Law

Pharma Tech sued LifeScan for infringement of two patents that concern blood glucose monitoring systems for home use by individuals with diabetes. The shared specification of Pharma Tech’s patents states that the claimed inventions improve on prior art blood glucose monitoring systems by “eliminat[ing] several of the critical operator depend[e]nt variables that adversely affect the accuracy and reliability” of these systems. The specification explains that the invention accomplishes this objective by performing multiple Cottrell current measurements and comparing the results. “In a system that is operating correctly, the results should agree within reasonable limits.” The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement. Pharma Tech agreed that the accused products do not literally infringe the claim. Prosecution history estoppel bars the claims for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; the accused system falls within the claim scope surrendered by the inventors during prosecution of the patent. View "Pharma Tech Solutions, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc." on Justia Law

Index and Gilead were developing drugs for treating the hepatitis C virus (HCV). Idenix alleged that the imminent FDA approval, and launch, of Gilead’s HCV treatment drug sofosbuvir would infringe Idenix’s 597 patent. After a jury trial, Gilead stipulated to infringement under the district court’s claim construction but argued that the patent was invalid for failure to meet the written description and enablement requirements. The jury found for Idenix, upheld the patent and awarded damages. The district court denied Gilead’s motion with respect to written description but granted judgment as a matter of law on enablement, holding the 597 patent invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to non-enablement and held that the patent is also invalid for lack of written description. Although the level of skill in the art is high, the patent does not provide enough meaningful guidance or working examples, across the full scope of the claim, to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine which nucleosides would be effective against HCV without extensive screening. The immense breadth of screening required amounts to "undue experimentation." Given the conspicuous absence of that compound, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not “visualize or recognize the members of the genus” as including 2'-fluoro-down, and the specification could not demonstrate that the inventor had possession of that embodiment at the time of filing. View "Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences Inc." on Justia Law

Horizon’s patents generally relate to methods and compositions for treating osteoarthritis and share a substantially similar specification; there are method-of-use patents and formulation patents. Both groups of patents are listed in the FDA Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) for Horizon’s PENNSAID® 2% product, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and the first FDA-approved twice-daily topical diclofenac sodium formulation for the treatment of pain of osteoarthritis of the knees. Prior art, PENNSAID® 1.5%, also treats osteoarthritis knee pain but differs from PENNSAID® 2% both in the formulation and recommended dosage. Actavis sought to market a generic version of PENNSAID 2% and filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with certification under 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV), stating that the patents-at-issue were invalid or would not be infringed by Actavis’s generic product. Horizon filed an infringement suit under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A). The Federal Circuit affirmed findings of invalidity and noninfringement, upholding claim construction that the terms “impurity A”; “degrades at less than 1% over 6 months”; and “consisting essentially of” are indefinite. Actavis’s ANDA label did not induce infringement of the method-of-use patent. View "HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc." on Justia Law

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was the leading cause of cancer deaths in 2000. The standard for treating NSCLC was chemotherapy, which ameliorated some lung cancer-related symptoms, but was limited in use due to toxicity. In response to a need for a therapy that would effective and well-tolerated, investigators pursued targeted therapies as alternatives to chemotherapy. A great majority of alternative therapies for NSCLC failed in clinical trials. One compound that ultimately gained FDA approval was erlotinib. OSI markets erlotinib under the name Tarceva®, which is covered by the 221 patent, which issued in 2005. On inter partes review, the Patent Board found certain claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103, in light of prior art and the 10-K disclosure filed by OSI with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Federal Circuit reversed. Substantial evidence did not support the Board’s finding that the asserted combinations of prior art or prior art and the 10-K disclosures each would have provided a person of ordinary skill with a reasonable expectation of success in using erlotinib to treat NSCLC in a mammal. View "OSI Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Apotex Inc" on Justia Law

Allergan’s patents, entitled “Combination of Brimonidine and Timolol for Topical Ophthalmic Use,” the Patents-in-Suit share a common specification that relates “to the topical ophthalmic use of brimonidine in combination with timolol . . . for treatment of glaucoma or ocular hypertension.” Allergan sued Sandoz, asserting that Sandoz’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for a generic version of Allergan’s ophthalmic drug Combigan® infringed those patents. The district court granted Allergan a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit affirmed, limiting a number of “wherein” clauses in the patents. Both Allergan and the Examiner explicitly relied on the “wherein” clauses to distinguish the claimed methods over the prior art during prosecution. The “wherein” clauses were neither unnecessary nor irrelevant. View "Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc." on Justia Law

Arthrex’s 541 patent describes a surgical suture anchor used to reattach soft tissue to bone. The disclosed “fully threaded suture anchor” includes “an eyelet shield that is molded into the distal part of the biodegradable suture anchor.” In an inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled two claims invalid. In doing so, the Board employed different language than Smith & Nephew, Inc.’s petition to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board’s minor variation in wording does not violate the safeguards of the Administrative Procedure Act and did not deprive Arthrex of an opportunity to be heard. The Board’s findings have substantial evidence support, its claim constructions are correct, and Arthrex has not articulated a cognizable constitutional challenge to inter partes review for its patent. View "Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc." on Justia Law

Nalpropion markets Contrave® for weight management in overweight or obese adults, with three Orange Book-listed patents. The 626 patent is drawn to a method for treating overweight or obesity comprising diagnosing an individual as suffering from overweight or obesity by body mass index, administering bupropion in an amount effective to induce weight loss, and administering naltrexone in an amount effective to enhance the weight loss activity of bupropion. The 195 patent is also directed to methods of treating overweight or obesity, but the claims are drawn to specific dosages of sustained-release naltrexone and bupropion that achieve a specific dissolution profile. The 111 patent is directed to a composition of sustained-release bupropion and naltrexone for affecting weight loss. Actavis filed an abbreviated new drug application seeking to enter the market with a generic version of Contrave® before the expiration of those patents. Nalpropion alleged infringement; Actavis brought invalidity counterclaims. The district court held each claim not invalid and infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, rejecting Actavis’s argument that a claim of the 195 patent lacked adequate written description support because its claimed dissolution profile was achieved using one method but the specification discloses data obtained using another method. The court reversed with respect to the 626 patent; it would have been obvious for a person of skill to combine bupropion and naltrexone for treating overweight and obesity because both drugs were known to cause weight loss. View "Nalpropian Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc." on Justia Law

Sanofi’s 170 and 592 patents respectively claim the compound cabazitaxel and methods of using it. Sanofi markets cabazitaxel under the trade name Jevtana® to treat certain drug-resistant prostate cancers. Both patents are listed in the Orange Book as covering cabazitaxel. Cabazitaxel belongs to a family of compounds called taxanes and is the third and most recent taxane drug to gain FDA approval. The others are paclitaxel, approved in 1992, and docetaxel, approved in 1996. Defendants filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications to market generic versions of cabazitaxel before the expiration of the patents, prompting Sanofi to sue for infringement. Defendants sought a declaration of invalidity. The district court found claims 7, 11, 14–16, and 26 of the 592 patent invalid as obvious and claims 1 and 2 of the 170 patent not invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit vacated as to claims 7, 11, 14–16, and 26 of the 592 patent because there was no case or controversy with respect to those claims when the district court issued its decision. Sanofi’s disclaimer of the disclaimed claims mooted any controversy over them. The court affirmed that the 170 patent is not invalid as obvious over docetaxel. View "Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC" on Justia Law