`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`WARNER CHILCOTT COMPANY, LLC,
`Plaintiff-Appellee,
`
`v.
`
`LUPIN LTD., LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS OF NY, LLC, AND
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
`Defendants-Appellants.
`______________________
`
`2014-1262, -1273
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States District Court for the
`District of New Jersey in Nos. 3:11-cv-05048-JAP-TJB
`and 3:12-cv-02928-JAP-TJB, Judge Joel A. Pisano.
`______________________
`
`Decided: October 22, 2014
`______________________
`
`GEORGE F. PAPPAS, Covington & Burling LLP, of
`Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him
`on the brief were JEFFREY B. ELIKAN, BENJAMIN C. BLOCK,
`ERIC R. SONNENSCHEIN, and JEREMY D. COBB. Of counsel
`was MICHELLE L. MORIN, of Redwood Shores, California.
`
`ROBERT F. GREEN, Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd., of Chi-
`cago, Illinois, argued for defendants-appellants, Lupin
`
`Mylan v. Warner Chilcott IPR2015-00682
`WC Ex. 2002, Pg. 1
`
`
`
`Case: 14-1262 Document: 65-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/22/2014
`
`Ltd., et al. With him on the brief were CARYN C. BORG-
`BREEN, JESSICA M. TYRUS, and MARC R. WEZOWSKI, of
`Chicago, Illinois, and JAMAICA P. SZELIGA, of Washington,
`DC. On the brief for defendants-appellants Amneal
`Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, et al., was PAUL H.
`KOCHANSKI, Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz &
`Mentlik, LLP, of Westfield, New Jersey.
`______________________
`
`Before LOURIE, PLAGER, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
`LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
`Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amneal
`Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of
`New York, LLC (collectively, the “Defendants”) appeal
`from the decision of the United States District Court for
`the District of New Jersey, which held that claims 1–9
`(“the asserted claims”) of U.S. Patent 7,704,984 (the “’984
`patent”) were not invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) (2006). See Warner Chilcott Co. v. Lupin Ltd.,
`No. 3:11-CV-05048, 2014 WL 202659 (D.N.J. Jan. 17,
`2014).
`Warner Chilcott Co., LLC (“Warner”) owns the ’984
`patent, which is directed to a method of contraception and
`covers the administration of Warner’s oral contraceptive
`drug product, Lo Loestrin® Fe (“Lo Loestrin”). The De-
`fendants submitted Abbreviated New Drug Application
`filings to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for
`approval to engage in the commercial manufacture, use,
`or sale of generic versions of Lo Loestrin. Warner then
`brought actions against the Defendants for infringement
`of the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) and
`the actions were consolidated into the case now before us
`on appeal.
`Before the district court, the Defendants stipulated to
`infringement of all of the asserted claims, but challenged
`the validity of those claims on the ground of obviousness.
`
`Mylan v. Warner Chilcott IPR2015-00682
`WC Ex. 2002, Pg. 2
`
`
`
`Case: 14-1262 Document: 65-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/22/2014
`
`Warner Chilcott, 2014 WL 202659, at *1–2. The district
`court held a bench trial from October 7, 2013 through
`October 17, 2013 on the issue of obviousness. Id. at *1.
`In a detailed opinion issued on January 17, 2014, the
`district court held that the Defendants failed to prove by
`clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims of
`the ’984 patent would have been obvious. Id. at *11, *23.
`The court then entered final judgment of infringement in
`favor of Warner. See Warner Chilcott Co. v. Lupin Ltd.,
`No. 3:11-CV-05048 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2014), ECF No. 135.
`The Defendants timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
`Having considered all of the Defendants’ arguments
`on appeal and found them unpersuasive, we conclude that
`on the basis of and for the reasons stated in the district
`court’s thorough opinion none of the asserted claims of the
`’984 patent was shown to be invalid for obviousness. We
`therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
`AFFIRMED
`
`Mylan v. Warner Chilcott IPR2015-00682
`WC Ex. 2002, Pg. 3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
