AstraZeneca UK Ltd. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litig.)

Decision Date14 December 2012
Docket Number2010–1461,2010–1468,2010–1462,2010–1465,2010–1467,2010–1463,Nos. 2010–1460,2010–1464,2010–1469,2010–1472,2010–1471,2010–1473.,2010–1466,2010–1470,s. 2010–1460
Citation703 F.3d 511
PartiesIn re ROSUVASTATIN CALCIUM PATENT LITIGATION. AstraZeneca UK Limited, IPR Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Shionogi Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Defendant–Appellant, and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Defendant–Appellant, and Apotex Corp., Defendant–Appellant, and Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Cobalt Laboratories Inc., Defendants–Appellants, and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Defendant–Appellant, and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Defendant–Appellant, and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Defendant–Appellant, and Sandoz, Inc., Defendant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

703 F.3d 511

In re ROSUVASTATIN CALCIUM PATENT LITIGATION.
AstraZeneca UK Limited, IPR Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Shionogi Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha, Plaintiffs–Appellees,
v.
Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Defendant–Appellant,
and
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Defendant–Appellant,
and
Apotex Corp., Defendant–Appellant,
and
Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Cobalt Laboratories Inc., Defendants–Appellants,
and
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Defendant–Appellant,
and
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Defendant–Appellant,
and
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Defendant–Appellant,
and
Sandoz, Inc., Defendant.

Nos. 2010–1460, 2010–1461, 2010–1462, 2010–1463, 2010–1464, 2010–1465, 2010–1466, 2010–1467, 2010–1468, 2010–1469, 2010–1470, 2010–1471, 2010–1472, 2010–1473.

United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2012.


[703 F.3d 514]


Charles E. Lipsey, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of Reston, VA, argued for plaintiff-appellee.
With him on the brief were Kenneth M. Frankel, and York M. Faulkner. Of counsel on the brief were Ford F. Farabow, Jr., and Howard W. Levine, of Washington, DC, Mary K. Ferguson, of Cambridge, MA, John D. Livingstone, of Atlanta, GA, Mary W. Bourke, Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz, LLP, of Wilmington, DE, Henry J. Renk, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, of New York, NY, Thomas Stevens and Judy Yun, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, of Wilmington, DE.

Robert B. Breisblatt, Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, of Chicago, IL, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Jeremy C. Daniel and Charles B. Paradis.


Jeffrey S. Ward, Merchant & Gould, P.C., of Madison, WI, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Thomas P. Heneghan, Edward J. Pardon, and Shane A. Brunner.

Steven A. Maddox, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Payson Lemeilleur and Jared Bunker, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, of Irvine, CA.

Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and PLAGER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion of the court filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge PLAGER. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge MAYER.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

This patent litigation arises under the Hatch–Waxman Act, 21 U.S.C. § 355, whereby producers of generic pharmaceutical products are authorized to challenge the patent status of a federally registered and approved drug product, before the generic producer has obtained approval to sell its counterpart of the approved product. The generic litigant who succeeds in eliminating the drug patent is granted a 180–day period of exclusivity against other potential providers of the generic product. 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(B)(iv).

The drug product here at issue is the “statin” having the brand name Crestor®, which is federally approved for use in control of cholesterol and for treatment of atherosclerosis. In suit is United States Reissue Patent No. 37,314 (“the '314 patent”), which is a reissue of

[703 F.3d 515]

United States Patent No. 5,260,440 (“the '440 patent”). The patentee is Shionogi Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha (“Shionogi”) and the exclusive licensee is AstraZeneca UK and its United States subsidiary IPR Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”).

The active ingredient of Crestor® is the calcium salt of a chemical compound whose common name is rosuvastatin, of the following structural formula:


IMAGE

Rosuvastatin is one of several statin products that lower cholesterol production in the liver by inhibiting the enzyme HMG–CoA reductase. Scientists working at the Shionogi laboratory in Japan were conducting research in search of a statin with reduced side effects as compared with the statin products that were then known. In the course of this research, in 1991 they discovered rosuvastatin and its beneficial properties. Patents were obtained in Japan and other countries, including the '314 patent in the United States.

Federal approval for sale and use in the United States was granted on August 12, 2003, after over two decades of development. The product was highly successful, due to its superior efficacy in lowering low-density (LDL) cholesterol and elevating high-density (HDL) cholesterol, and its reduced side effects, as compared with other commercial statins. See Peter H. Jones et al., Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Rosuvastatin Versus Atorvastatin, Simvastatin, and Pravastatin Across Doses (STELLAR Trial), 92 Am. J. Cardiology 152 (2003).

Several generic producers initiated a challenge to the '314 patent by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV). An ANDA permits a generic producer to market a drug product based on the federal approval obtained by the original registrant. Submission of an ANDA constitutes a statutory act of infringement pursuant to § 271(e)(2) of the Patent Act, which provides:

It shall be an act of infringement to submit an application under [section 355(j) of title 21] ... for a drug claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent ... if the purpose of such submission is to obtain approval under such Act to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, or sale of a drug, veterinary biological product, or biological product claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent before the expiration of such patent.

35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A). If the challenge to the patent fails, the ANDA cannot be approved until expiration of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A).


The infringement suits against the several generic challengers were consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Defendants are Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Apotex Corp., Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Cobalt Laboratories Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sandoz, Inc. The Defendants argued that the '314 patent

[703 F.3d 516]

is invalid on the ground of obviousness and improper reissue, and that the patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct in the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).

The district court ruled that the '314 patent is valid, enforceable, and infringed.1 The Defendants all admitted infringement, except for Apotex Corp. All of the Defendants appeal the rulings of validity and enforceability.

I
Validity

The Defendants challenge patent validity on the ground of obviousness. Obviousness is decided as a matter of law based on four basic factual inquiries, as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966), and elaborated in KSR International, Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406–07, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 167 L.Ed.2d 705 (2007), viz., (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention, (3) the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and (4) any objective indicia of unobviousness, such as commercial success or long-felt need, or failure of others.

The Defendants identified as the closest prior art European Patent Office Publication No. 0 367 895 of the Sandoz company (“ Sandoz ”), published May 16, 1990, which describes numerous pyrimidine-based statin compounds, including a compound designated as Compound 1b. Compound 1b has two -CH3 (methyl) groups on the amino side chain, instead of one -CH3 and one -SO2CH3 group as in rosuvastatin. Compound 1b has the following structural formula:


IMAGE

The Sandoz European application describes Compound 1b as an “especially preferred embodiment of the invention.” Sandoz, at *9. The Defendants argued in the district court that this statement suggests that Compound 1b would be a good “lead compound” for further research, and that with this selection as lead compound the change of the -CH3 group to a -SO2CH3 group would have been obvious because it would make Compound 1b more hydrophilic. The Defendants stated that

[703 F.3d 517]

numerous publications taught that liver-selective statins may have fewer undesirable side effects, and that hydrophilic statins are more liver-selective. The Defendants argued that persons of ordinary skill in this field would have been motivated to make Sandoz Compound 1b more hydrophilic, and that the C2 position (as marked on the molecule supra ) was the logical place to modify Compound 1b because the other parts of the structure were known to be essential to statin activity. The Defendants argued that a person of ordinary skill would have considered a limited number of common substitutions, including a sulfonyl “spacer” -SO2—at the C2 position to increase hydrophilicity. The Defendants argued that a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that this change would produce a statin with fewer adverse side effects, thereby rendering the compound obvious.

In response, the Plaintiffs pointed out that Sandoz Compound 1b demonstrated unexpected increased toxicity, and therefore was not an encouraging lead compound. The Plaintiffs stated that other compounds in the Sandoz European application, such as Compound 11, demonstrated better in vitro potency. The Plaintiffs responded to the argument that in 1991 a scientist would have known that Compound 1b should be made more hydrophilic, by pointing to publications that state that lipophilic substituents at the C2 position, the converse of hydrophilic, can increase statin potency. The Plaintiffs argued that the prior art provided no suggestion of rosuvastatin's unexpectedly superior properties as compared with Compound 1b or any other known compound, thus creating no “reasonable expectation of success.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed.Cir.2007) (“[T]he burden falls on the challenger of the patent to show by clear and convincing evidence that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan...

To continue reading

Request your trial
78 cases
  • Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Kellogg N. Am. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 7 September 2017
    ...that was the focus of the Board's attention, had a "specific intent to mislead or deceive the PTO." In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litig. , 703 F.3d 511, 519 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Therasense , 649 F.3d at 1287 ). The intent requirement is demanding: the evidence must be "sufficient to......
  • CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 10 May 2013
    ...does not deprive the public of the right to experiment with and improve upon the patented subject matter.” In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litig., 703 F.3d 511, 527 (Fed.Cir.2012). However, in Embrex, Inc. v. Service Engineering Corp., 216 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed.Cir.2000), the court stated ......
  • Janssen Prods., L.P. v. Lupin Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 14 August 2014
    ...of the patent which has been infringed."Id. (emphasis added) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A) ). See also In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litig., 703 F.3d 511, 515 (Fed.Cir.2012) (where infringement is proven and "[a] challenge to the patent fails, the ANDA cannot be approved until expir......
  • Medicines Co. v. Mylan Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 27 October 2014
    ...). Materiality and intent must be separately established. See Therasense, 649 F.3d at 1290 ; see also In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litig., 703 F.3d 511, 519 (2012). A patent challenger can establish materiality by showing that the PTO would not have issued the claim but for the applica......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
3 books & journal articles
  • Chapter §19.04 Unenforceability
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume II: Patent Enforcement Title CHAPTER 19 Defenses to Patent Infringement
    • Invalid date
    ...Kraft, 869 F.3d at 1352 (record citations omitted).[565] Kraft, 869 F.3d at 1351 (quoting In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litig., 703 F.3d 511, 519 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Therasense, 649 F.3d at 1287)).[566] Kraft, 869 F.3d at 1351–1352 (citing Therasense, 649 F.3d at 1290–91 (internal ......
  • Chapter §21.03 Reissue
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume II: Patent Enforcement Title CHAPTER 21 Correcting Patents in the USPTO (Reissue and Reexamination)
    • Invalid date
    ...Hewlett-Packard Co., 882 F.2d at 1558.[121] Hewlett-Packard Co., 882 F.2d at 1566.[122] Hewlett-Packard Co., 882 F.2d at 1561.[123] 703 F.3d 511 (Fed. Cir. 2012).[124] See 35 U.S.C. §251 (1999) ("Whenever any patent is, through error without any deceptive intention, deemed wholly or partly ......
  • The Federal Circuit Revisits Inequitable Conduct: How the Best-laid Schemes of Mice and Men Go Often Awry
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association New Matter: Intellectual Property Law (CLA) No. 42-4, December 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...Brands LLC v. Kellogg North America Co., 869 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Kellogg).24. See In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation, 703 F.3d 511 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Santarus; Outside the Box; Novo Nordisk; Network Signatures, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT