Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 494 Filed 09/22/17 Page 1 of 177 PageID #: 25145
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
`et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
` Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1455 WCB LEAD
` Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1504 WCB
` Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-0401 WCB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALLERGAN’S POST-TRIAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 494 Filed 09/22/17 Page 2 of 177 PageID #: 25146
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`FINDINGS OF FACT..........................................................................................................1 
`
`I. 
`
`A. 
`
`Background ..............................................................................................................4 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Restasis® Is a Groundbreaking Treatment for Dry Eye and KCS ..............4 
`
`Dry Eye Disease ...........................................................................................5 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`Dry Eye Disease Is a Progressive, Serious Ocular Condition
`that Causes Great Discomfort to Patients ........................................5 
`
`Diagnosis and Treatment of Dry Eye Disease Before
`Restasis® .........................................................................................7 
`
`3. 
`
`Allergan Developed Restasis® Through Years of Formulation and
`Clinical Work .............................................................................................11 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`Early Work with Cyclosporin Led to Failures by Others ..............11 
`
`Allergan’s Formulation Challenge .................................................13 
`
`Allergan’s Phase 2 Clinical Work ..................................................17 
`
`Allergan’s Phase 3 Clinical Trials Lead to Unexpected
`Results ............................................................................................27 
`
`4. 
`
`The Patents-in-Suit.....................................................................................34 
`
`B. 
`
`Defendants’ ANDA Products Infringe the Asserted Claims .................................35 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Defendants’ ANDA Products Meet the Composition Limitations of
`the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit ................................................35 
`
`Defendants’ ANDA Products Meet the Administration Limitations
`of the Asserted Methods Claims ................................................................38 
`
`Defendants’ ANDA Products Meet the Clinical Limitations of the
`Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit ......................................................40 
`
`Defendants’ ANDA Products Infringe the Asserted Composition
`Claims, and the Use of Defendants’ ANDA Products as Directed
`Induce and Contribute to Infringement of the Asserted Method
`Claims ........................................................................................................44 
`
`5. 
`
`Defendants’ New Non-Infringement Argument is Rejected .....................45 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 494 Filed 09/22/17 Page 3 of 177 PageID #: 25147
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
`
`C. 
`
`Defendants Have Failed to Prove By Clear and Convincing Evidence that
`the Asserted Claims Are Invalid ............................................................................48 
`
`Page
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`The Court Finds Defendants’ Experts Drs. Hanes and Calman Not
`Credible, and Defendants Have Therefore Failed to Meet Their
`Burden on Invalidity ..................................................................................48 
`
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................56 
`
`The Defendants Failed To Prove By Clear and Convincing Evidence
`That The ’979 Patent Anticipates Any Claims of the Patents-in-Suit .......57 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`The ’979 Patent Fails to Disclose a Formulation with 0.05%
`Cyclosporin and 1.25% Castor Oil ................................................58 
`
`The ’979 Patent Fails to Disclose the Recited Clinical
`Limitations of the Asserted Claims, Either Expressly or
`Inherently .......................................................................................64 
`
`Defendants Failed To Prove By Clear And Convincing Evidence
`That Any Of The Cited References Render Obvious Any Claims of
`the Patents-in-Suit ......................................................................................67 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`The ’979 Patent Does Not Render Obvious Any of the
`Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit ..........................................68 
`
`The ’979 Patent in Combination with Sall Does Not Render
`Obvious Any of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit ..........75 
`
`The ’979 Patent in Combination with Sall and the ’607
`Patent Does Not Render Obvious Any of the Asserted
`Claims of the Patents-in-Suit .........................................................79 
`
`The ’979 Patent in Combination with Sall and Acheampong
`Does Not Render Obvious Any of the Asserted Claims of the
`Patents-in-Suit ................................................................................82 
`
`5. 
`
`Objective Indicia Support a Finding of Nonobviousness ..........................83 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`Unexpected Results ........................................................................84 
`
`Long Felt Need ..............................................................................96 
`
`Failure of Others ..........................................................................100 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 494 Filed 09/22/17 Page 4 of 177 PageID #: 25148
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
`
`Page
`Commercial Success ....................................................................102 
`
`Copying ........................................................................................105 
`
`The Objective Factors Have a Nexus to the Asserted Claims .....105 
`
`d. 
`
`e. 
`
`f. 
`
`The Defendants Have Failed To Prove By Clear and Convincing
`Evidence That The Patents-in-Suit Are Invalid for Obviousness-
`Type Double Patenting ............................................................................107 
`
`Defendants Have Failed to Prove By Clear And Convincing
`Evidence Incorrect Inventorship on the Patents-in-Suit ..........................108 
`
`Defendants Have Not Shown by Clear and Convincing Evidence
`that the Patents Are Invalid for Lack of Enablement ...............................112 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`“Acrylate/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Cross-Polymer” is a
`convention name encompassing a limited number of
`materials, not a chemical name describing a genus of
`chemicals......................................................................................112 
`
`The Patents-in-Suit Enable Claims Including an
`“Acrylate/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Cross-Polymer.” ....................117 
`
`D. 
`
`The Facts Support Allergan’s Entitlement to Injunctive Relief ...........................119 
`
`II. 
`
`CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .............................................................................................121 
`
`A. 
`
`Defendants Infringe the Asserted Claims of the Patents-In-Suit .........................121 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Products Described in Their ANDAs, and the
`Use of the Products as Directed, Meet All the Limitations of the
`Asserted Claims .......................................................................................122 
`
`Defendants Are Liable for Inducement and Contributory
`Infringement .............................................................................................124 
`
`Defendants’ New Non-Infringement Argument Is Both Waived and
`Factually Incorrect ...................................................................................127 
`
`B. 
`
`Defendants Have Failed to Prove Invalidity by Clear and Convincing
`Evidence ...............................................................................................................130 
`
`1. 
`
`Defendants’ Expert Testimony on Invalidity Was Conclusory and
`Lacked Credibility ...................................................................................130 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 494 Filed 09/22/17 Page 5 of 177 PageID #: 25149
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
`
`Page
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`The Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit Are Not Invalid as
`Anticipated ...............................................................................................132 
`
`The Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit Are Not Invalid as
`Obvious ....................................................................................................136 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`Defendants Failed to Show Inherency By Clear and
`Convincing Evidence ...................................................................141 
`
`Objective Indicia Also Provide Evidence of Non-
`obviousness ..................................................................................143 
`
`4. 
`
`Defendants Failed to Prove by Clear and Convincing Evidence that
`the Asserted Claims Are Invalid for Lack of Enablement .......................148 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`Claim Construction Law Regarding “Acrylate/C10-30 Alkyl
`Acrylate Cross-Polymers” ...........................................................148 
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Enabled ...............................................151 
`
`Defendants Failed to Prove by Clear and Convincing Evidence that
`the Asserted Claims Are Invalid for Obviousness-Type Double
`Patenting ..................................................................................................154 
`
`Defendants Failed to Prove by Clear and Convincing Evidence that
`the Asserted Claims Are Invalid for Incorrect Inventorship ....................155 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`C. 
`
`A Permanent Injunction Is Appropriate ...............................................................157 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Allergan Will Suffer Irreparable Harm ....................................................158 
`
`Remedies at Law Are Inadequate ............................................................159 
`
`Balance of the Harms Favors Allergan ....................................................159 
`
`The Public Interest Favors Allergan ........................................................160 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 494 Filed 09/22/17 Page 6 of 177 PageID #: 25150
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`544 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................158, 159, 160
`
`Abbott Labs v. TorPharm, Inc.,
`300 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..............................................................................................122
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................72, 121, 131, 141
`
`ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..............................................................................................151
`
`Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.,
`616 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2010)........................................................................................43, 122
`
`Aerielle Techs., Inc. v. Procare Int’l Co.,
`2:08-CV-284-TJW, 2011 WL 1238924 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2011) ........................................158
`
`AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac and Ugine,
`344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..............................................................................................153
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`808 F. Supp. 2d 715 (D. Del. 2011), aff’d, 501 F. App’x 965 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..2, 55, 131, 140
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`726 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................66, 133
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`796 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................138, 139, 140
`
`Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 2:12-cv-207 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2016) ..................................................................154
`
`Allergan v. Apotex,
`Nos. 1:10-cv-681, 1:11-cv-298, 1:11-cv-650, 2013 WL 286251 (M.D.N.C.
`Jan. 24, 2013), rev’d on other grounds, 754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................125
`
`Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.,
`580 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..............................................................................................155
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 ........................................................................................................................154
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 494 Filed 09/22/17 Page 7 of 177 PageID #: 25151
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 9:06-cv-158, 2008 WL 7180756 (E.D. Tex. May 1, 2008) ............................................129
`
`Page(s)
`
`AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc.,
`623 F. Supp. 2d 579 (D.N.J. 2009), aff’d 633 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................159
`
`AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc.,
`633 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..............................................................................124, 125, 127
`
`Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp.,
`441 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006).......................................................................................... passim
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................................124
`
`Bio-Technology Gen. Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`80 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996)................................................................................................159
`
`Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharm., Inc.,
`688 F. App’x 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................126, 127
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................160
`
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc.,
`229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..............................................................................................145
`
`Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,
`295 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..............................................................................................143
`
`Celsis In Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc.,
`664 F.3d 922 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................159
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`363 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..............................................................................................153
`
`Clear with Computers, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc.,
`No. 6:09-cv-479, Dkt. 373 (E.D. Tex. July 5, 2011) .............................................................129
`
`ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc.,
`668 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................61, 134
`
`Computer Acceleration Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`481 F. Supp. 2d 620 (E.D. Tex. 2007) ...................................................................................128
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 494 Filed 09/22/17 Page 8 of 177 PageID #: 25152
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)
`
`Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..............................................................................................145
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................................121
`
`Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co.,
`559 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..............................................................................................122
`
`Cumberland Pharm. Inc. v. Mylan Institutional LLC,
`846 F.3d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..............................................................................................155
`
`Cummins-Allison Corp. v. SBM Co.,
`No. 9:07-cv-196, 2009 WL 763926 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2009) ............................................129
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Del. Display Grp. LLC v. Vizio, Inc.,
`2017 WL 784988 (D. Del. Mar. 1, 2017) ..............................................................................152
`
`In re Depomed Patent Litig.,
`No. 2:13-cv-4507, 2016 WL 7163647 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2016) .............................................126
`
`In re Deuel,
`51 F.3d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1995)................................................................................................138
`
`Dey, L.P. v. Teva Parenteral Meds., Inc.,
`958 F. Supp. 2d 654 (N.D.W. Va. 2013), aff’d sub nom. DEY LP v. Teva
`Parenteral Meds., Inc., 600 F. App’x 773 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................121
`
`Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Co.,
`717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)......................................................................................158, 160
`
`Drone Techs., Inc. v. Parrot S.A.,
`838 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................155
`
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) .......................................................................................................158, 159
`
`Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. Cal. Edison Co.,
`227 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..............................................................................................145
`
`Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. Ltd.,
`533 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................137
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 494 Filed 09/22/17 Page 9 of 177 PageID #: 25153
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)
`
`Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. and Research,
`346 F.3d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..............................................................................................133
`
`Page(s)
`
`Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life Scis., Inc.,
`34 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1994)................................................................................................133
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC,
`435 F. App’x 917 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................125, 126
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................155
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc.,
`471 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006)......................................................................................133, 134
`
`Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1202, Dkt. No. 234 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2017) ...........................................149, 150
`
`In re Geisler,
`116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..............................................................................................139
`
`Gemstar-TV Guide Int’l, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`383 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..............................................................................................156
`
`Georgia–Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Gypsum Co.,
`195 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..............................................................................................121
`
`Glaxo, Inc. v. Novopharm, Ltd.,
`110 F.3d 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..............................................................................................121
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ...................................................................................................................137
`
`Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok, Ltd.,
`208 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..............................................................................................134
`
`Hoffman LaRoche v. Apotex,
`Nos. 2:07-cv-4417, 2010 WL 3522786 (D.N.J. Sept. 2, 2010) .............................................125
`
`Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. ICM Controls Corp.,
`45 F. Supp. 3d 969 (D. Minn. 2014) ..............................................................................152, 154
`
`Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.,
`802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986)..............................................................................................151
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 494 Filed 09/22/17 Page 10 of 177 PageID #: 25154
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)
`
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010), aff’d 564 U.S. 91 (2011) ..............................................126, 159
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ineos USA LLC v. Berry Plastics Corp.,
`783 F.3d 865 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................135
`
`Innogenetics N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................131
`
`Intendis GMBH v. Glenmark Pharm. Ltd.,
`117 F. Supp. 3d 549 (D. Del. 2015), aff’d sub nom. Intendis GMBH v.
`Glenmark Pharm. Inc., USA, 822 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..............................................146
`
`Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil,
`774 F. 2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1985).............................................................................................141
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc.,
`429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................................154
`
`J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co.,
`106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..............................................................................................145
`
`Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc.,
`No. 08-5103, 2012 WL 3990221 ...........................................................................................144
`
`Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co.,
`242 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..............................................................................................132
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................................144
`
`Kloster Speedsteel AB. v. Crucible Inc.,
`No. 85-2174, 1986 WL 721181 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 1986) (overruled on other
`grounds by Knorr–Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) ............................................................................................142
`
`Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC,
`381 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................................ passim
`
`In re Koller,
`613 F.2d 819 (C.C.P.A. 1977) ...............................................................................................151
`
`Kopykake Enters. v. Lucks Co.,
`264 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..............................................................................................152
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 494 Filed 09/22/17 Page 11 of 177 PageID #: 25155
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)
`
`KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................................................137, 143
`
`Page(s)
`
`L.A. Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`No. 2:13-cv-08567, 2014 WL 11241786 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2014) .....................................126
`
`Leo Pharm. Products, Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..............................................................................................144
`
`Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist and Derrick Co.,
`730 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984)..............................................................................................144
`
`In re Margolis,
`785 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1986)..............................................................................................145
`
`Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp.,
`401 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................................152
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship.,
`564 U.S. 91 (2011) .................................................................................................................130
`
`Millennium Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`__F.3d__, 2017 WL 3013204 (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2017) ........................................................142
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................137, 141, 143
`
`Mitsubishi Chem. Corp. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`435 F. App’x 927 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................117, 126, 149, 150
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................132
`
`Novozymes A/S v. Genencor Int’l, Inc.,
`474 F. Supp. 2d 592 (D. Del. 2007) .......................................................................................159
`
`In re NTP,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..............................................................................................137
`
`O2 Micro Int’l. Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.,
`467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..............................................................................................128
`
`In re Oelrich,
`666 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1981) ...............................................................................................142
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 494 Filed 09/22/17 Page 12 of 177 PageID #: 25156
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)
`
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litig.,
`483 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..............................................................................................132
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ormco Crop. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`498 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..............................................................................................151
`
`PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................141, 142
`
`Payless Shoesource, Inc. v. Reebok Int’l Ltd.,
`998 F.2d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1993)................................................................................................160
`
`In re Peterson,
`315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..............................................................................................139
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`518 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................154, 155
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms., USA, Inc.,
`429 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................................160
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................................151
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`843 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................124
`
`Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.,
`800 F. Supp. 2d 789 (E.D. Tex. 2011), aff’d 696 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......158, 159, 160
`
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.,
`702 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................................158
`
`Price v. Symsek,
`988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993)..............................................................................................156
`
`The Research Found. of State Univ. of New York v. Mylan Pharm.,
`2012 WL 1901267 (D. Del. May 25, 2012) ...................................................................158, 159
`
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993)..................................................................................................142
`
`Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp.,
`659 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..............................................................................................159
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 494 Filed 09/22/17 Page 13 of 177 PageID #: 25157
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................133
`
`Page(s)
`
`Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Apotex, Inc.,
`531 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................121
`
`Sandt Tech., Ltd. v. Resco Metal & Plastics Corp.,
`264 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..............................................................................................156
`
`Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................137
`
`Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.,
`470 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..............................................................................................160
`
`Scanner Techs. Corp. v. ICOS Vision Sys. Corp. N.V.,
`528 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................121
`
`Schering Corp. v. Amgen Inc.,
`222 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..............................................................................................149
`
`Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................133, 150
`
`Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc.,
`308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................55, 131, 136
`
`In re Soni,
`54 F.3d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1995)..........................................................................................144, 145
`
`Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd.,
`492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..............................................................................................138
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..............................................................................................132
`
`Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc.,
`632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011)......................................................................................130, 148
`
`Trintec Indus. Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp.,
`295 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..............................................................................................133
`
`Trovan, Ltd. v. Sokymat SA, Irori,
`299 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..............................................................................................156
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 494 Filed 09/22/17 Page 14 of 177 PageID #: 25158
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)
`
`U.S. Steel Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.,
`865 F.2d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1989)......................................................................................151, 154
`
`Page(s)
`
`Visto Corp. v. Seven Networks, Inc.,
`No. 2:03-cv-333, 2006 WL 5153146 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2006) ..........................................129
`
`W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983)..............................................................................................143
`
`In re Wands,
`858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)................................................................................................152
`
`Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA,
`418 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................................151
`
`Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 10 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................66, 130, 136, 143
`
`Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp.,
`458 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................