Therasense Inc. (now Known As Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.) v. Becton

Citation99 U.S.P.Q.2d 1065,649 F.3d 1276
Decision Date25 May 2011
Docket Number2008–1595.,2008–1513,2008–1512,Nos. 2008–1511,2008–1514,s. 2008–1511
PartiesTHERASENSE, INC. (now known as Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.) and Abbott Laboratories, Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, and Nova Biomedical Corporation, Defendants–Appellees,andBayer HealthCare LLC, Defendant–Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

John M. Whealan, of Silver Spring, MD argued for plaintiffs-appellants on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief were Rohit K. Singla and Peter A. Detre, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, of San Francisco, CA; and Jeffrey I. Weinberger, of Los Angeles, CA; Jeffrey A. Lamken and Michael G. Pattillo, Jr., MoloLamken LLP, of Washington, DC. Of counsel were Chantal M. D'Apuzzo, Fred A. Rowley, Jr., Andrew W. Song and Donald W. Ward, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, of Los Angeles, CA.Bradford J. Badke, Ropes & Gray LLP, of New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellees Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al. on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief was Sona De. Of counsel was Gabrielle M. Ciuffreda.Rachel Krevans, Morrison & Foerster LLP, of San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-appellee Bayer HealthCare LLC on rehearing en banc. With her on the brief were Brian M. Kramer and Gregory W. Reilly, of San Diego, CA; and Kenneth P. George and Joseph M. Casino, Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP, of New York, NY. Of counsel were Jason R. Bartlett, Parisa Jorjani, and Wesley E. Overson.Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA argued for amicus curiae the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief were Bernard J. Knight, Jr., General Counsel, Sydney O. Johnson, Jr. and Janet A. Gongola, Associate Solicitors. Of counsel on the brief was Scott R. McIntosh, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC.Carolyn B. Lamm, American Bar Association, of Chicago, IL, for amicus curiae The American Bar Association on rehearing en banc. Of counsel on the brief were Michael A. Valek and William L. Lafuze, Vinson & Elkins LLP, of Houston, TX.John L. Cooper, Farella Braun & Martel LLP, of San Francisco, CA, for amicus curiae Dolby Laboratories, Inc. on rehearing en banc.Richard G. Taranto, Farr & Taranto, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Verizon Communications, Inc. on rehearing en banc. Of counsel on the brief were John Thorne and Gail F. Levine, Verizon Communications Inc., of Arlington, VA.David Hricik, Mercer University School of Law, of Macon, GA, for amicus curiae Professor David Hricik on rehearing en banc.Paul H. Berghoff, McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff, LLP, of Chicago, IL, for amicus curiae Intellectual Property Owners Association on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief was Kurt W. Rohde. Of counsel on the brief were Douglas K. Norman and Kevin H. Rhodes, Intellectual Property Owners Association, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was Herbert C. Wamsley, Intellectual Property Owners Association, of Washington, DC.Robert P. Greenspoon, Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC, of Chicago, IL, for amici curiae Acacia Research Corporation and 1st Media, LLC on rehearing en banc.Ian Scott, Duane Morris LLP, of New York, NY, for amicus curiae Apotex, Inc. on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief were Joseph M. Bennett–Paris, of Atlanta, GA; Robert Gould and Elese Hanson, of Chicago, IL; and Matthew C. Mousley, of Philadelphia, PA. Of counsel on the brief was Shashank Upadhye, Apotex, Inc., of Toronto, CA.Frederick F. Hadidi, Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP, of Menlo Park, CA for amici curiae 22 Patent Prosecution Firms and Practitioners on rehearing en banc. Of counsel on the brief was Julie Y. Mar–Spinola, Sawyer Law Group, P.C., of Palo Alto, CA.Christian E. Mammen, University of California Hastings College of the Law, of San Francisco, CA, for amici curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors on rehearing en banc.Leland W. Hutchinson, Jr., Freeborn & Peters LLP, of Chicago, IL, for amici curiae Ole K. Nilssen and Geo Foundation, Ltd. on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief were Jonathan Hill and Matthew J. Kramer.Mark A. Perry, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, of Washington, DC, for amici curiae Sanofi–Aventis and Microsoft Corporation on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief were Matthew D. McGill and William G. Jenks.Robert A. Armitage, Eli Lilly and Company, of Indianapolis, IN, for amici curiae 43 Patent Practitioners Employed by Eli Lilly and Company on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief were James J. Kelley and Mark J. Stewart.Christopher E. Chalsen, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, of New York NY, for amicus curiae The American Intellectual Property Law Association on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief were Lawrence T. Kass and Nathaniel T. Browand. Of counsel on the brief was Alan J. Kasper, American Intellectual Property Law Association, of Arlington, VA.Hansjorg Sauer, Biotechnology Industry Organization, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae The Biotechnology Industry Organization on rehearing en banc.Timothy D. Johnston, Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP, of Boston, MA, for amicus curiae Boston Patent Law Association, on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief was Rory P. Pheiffer.

Steven C. Sereboff, SoCal IP Law Group LLP, of Westlake Village, CA, for amicus curiae Conejo Valley Bar Association on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief were Mark A. Goldstein and M. Kala Sarvaiya.Robert C. Nissen, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, of Alexandria, VA, for amicus curiae Ecore International, Inc. on rehearing en banc.Bruce M. Wexler, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, of New York, NY, for amici curiae Eisai Co., Ltd. et al. on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief were Stephen B. Kinnaird and Igor V. Timofeyev, of Washington, DC.James K. Stronski, Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP, of New York, NY, for amicus curiae The Federal Circuit Bar Association on rehearing en banc. Of counsel on the brief was Terence P. Stewart, Stewart & Stewart, of Washington, DC.Robert J. McAughan, Jr., Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, LLP, of Houston, TX, for amicus curiae Houston Intellectual Property Law Association on rehearing en banc.Gregory L. Diskant, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, of New York, NY, for amici curiae Johnson & Johnson and The Procter & Gamble Company on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief were Eugene M. Gelernter and Charles D. Hoffmann; and Philip S. Johnson, Eric I. Harris and Henry S. Hadad, of New Brunswick, NJ.Brad D. Pedersen, Patterson Thuente Christensen Pedersen, P.A., of Minneapolis, MN, for amicus curiae Patterson Thuente Christensen Pedersen, P.A. on rehearing en banc.Carter G. Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief were Jeffrey P. Kushan, Eric A. Shumsky and James C. Owens; and Constantine L. Trela, Jr., of Chicago, IL. Of counsel on the brief was David E. Korn, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, of Washington, DC.James R. Batchelder, Howrey LLP, of East Palo Alto, CA, for amicus curiae SAP America, Inc. on rehearing en banc.Wiliam L. Respess, Nanogen Inc., of San Diego, CA, for amicus curiae San Diego Intellectual Property Law Association on rehearing en banc. Of counsel on the brief was Douglas E. Olson, Paul Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, of San Diego, CA.Charles W. Shifley, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., of Chicago, IL, for amicus curiae The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago on rehearing en banc.Daniel J. Popeo, Washington Legal Foundation of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief was Richard A. Samp.Bruce A. Lehman, International Intellectual Property Institute, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae International Intellectual Property Institute, on rehearing en banc.Jeffrey M. Samuels, University of Akron School of Law, Akron, OH, for amicus curiae The University of Akron School of Law on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief was Robert C. Kahrl.Jeffrey D. Mills, King & Spalding LLP, of Austin, TX, for amicus curiae Association of Citizens for Patent Protection in the Public Interest on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief was Brian C. Banner.Henry C. Dinger, Goodwin Procter LLP, of Boston, MA, for amici curiae Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. Cisco Systems, Inc., and Generic Pharmaceutical Association on rehearing en banc. With him on the brief were Elaine Herrmann Blais, Nicholas K. Mitrokostas and Andrew M. Batchelor.Dan L. Bagatell, Perkins Coie Brown & Bain, P.A., of Phoenix, AZ, for amicus curiae Intel Corporation on rehearing en banc. Of counsel on the brief was Tina M. Chappell, Intel Corporation, of Chandler, AZ.Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, PROST, MOORE, O'MALLEY, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.Opinion for the court filed by Chief Judge RADER, in which Circuit Judges NEWMAN, LOURIE, LINN, MOORE, and REYNA join in full, and in which Circuit Judge O'MALLEY joins in part V.Concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part opinion filed by Circuit Judge O'MALLEY.Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge BRYSON, in which Circuit Judges GAJARSA, DYK, and PROST join.RADER, Chief Judge.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California found U.S. Patent No. 5,820,551 (“the '551 patent”) unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 565 F.Supp.2d 1088 (N.D.Cal.2008) (“ Trial Opinion ”). Therasense, Inc. (now Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.) and Abbott Laboratories (collectively, Abbott) appeal that judgment. This court vacates and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I

The '551 patent involves disposable blood glucose test strips for diabetes...

To continue reading

Request your trial
748 cases
  • In re Depomed Patent Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • September 30, 2016
    ...misconduct in practicing before the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). See generally Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1306-07 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In this context, an unclean hands defense must be evaluated with an eye toward the nature of patent pr......
  • In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 13-2472
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • December 17, 2019
    ..."the patent would not have issued but for the misrepresentation or omission."8 Id. at 1071 ; see also Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Intent to deceive must be "the single most reasonable inference able to be drawn from the evidence."9 Ther......
  • United States v. Janssen Biotech, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • December 17, 2021
    ...conduct is an equitable defense to patent infringement that, if proved, bars enforcement of a patent." Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. , 649 F.3d 1276, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In comparison, a Walker Process anti-trust claim provides "proof that a patentee has ‘obtained the paten......
  • W. Plastics, Inc. v. Dubose Strapping, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • September 25, 2018
    ...conduct is an equitable defense to patent infringement that bars enforcement of a patent. See Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "To hold a patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct, a district court must find by clear and convincing eviden......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 firm's commentaries
27 books & journal articles
  • Specific Practices That Have Been Challenged as Misuse
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Intellectual Property Misuse: Licensing and Litigation. Second Edition
    • December 6, 2020
    ...(S.D. Fla. 2010) (following Pace International’ s interpretation of C.R. Bard ). 221. See Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson, & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1287-1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (discussing how Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co., Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., and ......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Pharmaceutical Industry Antitrust Handbook. Second Edition
    • December 8, 2018
    ...146 (1987), 255 Theme Promotions v. News America Marketing, 546 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2008), 161 Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011), 305, 306 Thompson v. W. States Med. Ctr., 535 U.S. 357 (2002), 69, 70 Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 593......
  • Intellectual Property Antitrust Issues in Litigation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Intellectual Property and Antitrust Handbook. Second Edition
    • December 6, 2015
    ...(applying Ninth Circuit law to Sherman Act § 2 claim), abrogated in part on other grounds by Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 89. See HOVENKAMP, supra note 23, § 5.3a1 at 5-32. 90. Atari , 747 F.2d at 1439; see S. Rep. No. 97-275, at 19-20 (1982),......
  • 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
    ...The appellate court observed that although its inequitable conduct decisions, "e.g., Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc), set important limits on conclusions of unenforceability through that doctrine," they were not relevant here. In a footn......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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