G.D. SEARLE LLC, PFIZER ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellants
LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendant-Appellee, WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, APOTEX INC., APOTEX CORP., Defendants-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in No. 2:13-cv-00121-AWALRL, Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen.
KANNON K. SHANMUGAM, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by ALLISON B. JONES, DAVID M. KRINSKY, CHRISTOPHER ALAN SUAREZ; AARON STIEFEL, SOUMITRA DEKA, DANIEL REISNER, JEFFREY T. MARTIN, DANIEL DINAPOLI, Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, NY.
BETH D. JACOB, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellee Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Also represented by CLIFFORD KATZ; DOUGLASS C. HOCHSTETLER, Chicago, IL.
HENRY C. DINGER, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendant-appellee Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Also represented by KEITH A. ZULLOW, DAVID M. HASHMALL, New York, NY; WILLIAM M. JAY, Washington, DC.
DOUGLAS H. CARSTEN, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, San Diego, CA, argued for defendant-appellee Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Also represented by PETER SOO KANG; NANCY L. ZHANG, Palo Alto, CA.
STEPHEN AUTEN, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for defendants-appellees Apotex Inc., Apotex Corp. Also represented by IAN SCOTT, RICHARD T. RUZICH; RICHARD HOOPER OTTINGER, Vandeventer Black LLP, Norfolk, VA.
Before PROST, Chief Judge, BRYSON and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
Bryson, Circuit Judge.
G.D. Searle LLC and Pfizer Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (collectively, " Pfizer" ) appeal from a final judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The court invalidated the relevant claims of Pfizer's reissued U.S. Patent No. RE44,048 (" the RE '048 patent" ) for obviousness-type double patenting. We affirm.
The doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is intended to prevent the extension of the term of a patent by prohibiting the issuance of the claims of a second patent that are not patentably distinct from the claims of the first patent. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Meds., Inc., 689 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The double-patenting issue in this case turns on whether Pfizer is entitled to invoke section 121 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 121, as a defense against a claim of double patenting. That issue in turn depends on an interpretation of the prosecution history of the RE '048 patent and U.S. Patent No. 5,760,068 (" the '068 patent" ), which is the original of the RE '048 patent.
The '068 patent can be traced back to an application filed with the Patent and Trademark Office (" PTO" ) in 1993. That application, Serial No. 08/160,594 (" the '594 application" ), disclosed and claimed compounds, compositions, and methods of use regarding the treatment of pain and inflammation without the harmful side ...