ARTICLE
15 February 2021

Federal Circuit Agrees To Reconsider Ruling In GSK V. Teva Drug Patent Case

SM
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Contributor

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more than 1,200 lawyers located in 16 offices worldwide, our client-centered approach is grounded in nearly a century of building enduring relationships on trust and collaboration. Our broad and diversified practices serve global clients—from startups to Fortune 500 companies—at every stage of the business cycle, including high-stakes litigation, complex transactions, sophisticated financings and regulatory issues. With leading edge technologies and innovation behind our team, we pride ourselves on being a strategic partner to our clients.
A Federal Circuit panel on Tuesday vacated its earlier finding that Teva induced infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE40,000, GSK's patent covering its drug
United States Intellectual Property
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • within Cannabis & Hemp topic(s)

A Federal Circuit panel on Tuesday vacated its earlier finding that Teva induced infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE40,000, GSK's patent covering its drug, Coreg®, and set a new round of oral argument for February 23.  Back in October, the Court in a 2-1 decision found Teva liable for induced infringement, even though Teva's original label did not include the indication covered by the '000 Patent.  In its ruling, the Court took issue with Teva's marketing materials stating that its generic product is an AB rated generic of Coreg tablets without specific reference to any indication.  Following the decision, generic drug manufacturers and other interest groups asked the Court to reconsider, arguing that the ruling would impede the availability of low-cost generic drugs to reach the market and would effectively nullify the purpose of the Section viii statement, which allows a generic company to "carve out" any reference to a patented indication from its product's labeling.

Argument during February's rehearing will be limited to whether there is substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict of induced infringement during the time period from January 8, 2008 through April 30, 2011, or during the period when the '000 Patent reissued to when the FDA ordered Teva to amend its label to conform with the approved Coreg® labeling.  Thus, the order implies that the evidence at issue will be limited to Teva's promotional and marketing materials, i.e., evidence other than Teva's label.

The case is GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 976 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More