By: Yunnan Jiang
Federal Circuit denies appeal in Baraclude patent case
On October 20, the Federal Circuit declined to hear an appeal by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.’s (“BMS”). The denial follows a United States District Court for the District of Delaware decision that held the composition of matter patent covering entecavir, US patent 5,206,244 invalid as obvious, which would allow Israel-based Generics giant Teva Pharmaceutical Industries to launch generic production upon the FDA’s final approval. Entecavir is the active ingredient of Baraclude, which is an antiviral medicine developed by scientists at BMS. Baraclude is approved in the United States for the treatment of hepatitis B in adults who have active virus and liver damage and is the global market leader in oral treatments for hepatitis B, with global sales of over $1 billion in 2013. The district court decided that the invention of entecavir was obvious at the time of its effective filing date and rejected evidence postdating the invention to establish unexpected results.
Federal Circuit denies fee-shifting sanction in patent infringement action over Pfizer
In AntiCancer, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc, No. 13-1056 (Fed. Cir. October 20, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the United States District Court for the Southern District of California’s decision to grant summary judgment for Pfizer and impose a fee-shifting sanction on AntiCancer as a condition of supplementing their infringement contentions. AntiCancer field a lawsuit against Pfizer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for breach of a license agreement, which the district court found “woefully insufficient”, “vague”. However, on appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected such evidence as basis for bad faith and held that the district court exceeded their discretionary authority in imposing such fee-shifting sanction.
Federal Circuit rejects patent infringement for products sold oversees
In Halo Electronics, Inc., v. Pulse Electronics Inc., No. 13-1472 (Fed. Cir. October 22, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Nevada’s decision finding no direct infringement of the Halo patents for products Pulse manufactured, shipped, and delivered outside the U.S. The Federal Circuit further affirmed district court’s decision finding direct infringement of the Halo patents for pulse products delivered in the United States and inducement for products Pulse delivered outside the United States but were imported into the United States by others. In this decision, the Federal Circuit court rejected Halo’s argument that domestic sale reduction resulted from Halo’s oversee sale and sales negotiations conducted within the United States for sales oversees constituted evidence for patent infringement.
Yunnan Jiang is a 1L at Harvard Law School.