`
`No. 2022-1595
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`
`GENENTECH, INC., INTERMUNE, INC.,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants
`
`v.
`
`SANDOZ INC., LEK PHARMACEUTICALS, D.D.,
`Defendants-Appellees
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in
`C.A. No. 1:19-cv-00078-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews
`
`REPLY BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS GENENTECH, INC.
`AND INTERMUNE, INC.
`
`
`
`Kira A. Davis
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`953 East 3rd Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90013
`Telephone: 213-992-4499
`Facsimile: 415-236-6300
`
`July 5, 2022
`
`
`
`Daralyn J. Durie
`Vera Ranieri
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`217 Leidesdorff Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415-362-6666
`Facsimile: 415-236-6300
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
`Genentech, Inc. and InterMune, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`II.
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ i
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 2
`The District Court Erred in Finding the LFT Patents Not
`I.
`Infringed ................................................................................................ 2
`The district court’s legal error is not entitled to
`A.
`deferential review ........................................................................ 2
`The district court did not apply the correct legal standard ......... 4
`B.
`C. Applying the correct standard, Sandoz’s Label induces
`infringement ................................................................................ 8
`The District Court Erred in Finding the DDI Patents Not
`Infringed .............................................................................................. 11
`A.
`Sandoz’s Label recommends infringement ............................... 11
`B. Where the Label recommends infringement, that is
`dispositive ................................................................................. 12
`There is no requirement for real-world evidence to
`1.
`show direct infringement ................................................ 12
`An ANDA application resolves the infringement
`question when it provides a clear recommendation
`to infringe ........................................................................ 13
`Sandoz misreads Vanda .................................................. 16
`The district court erred in requiring Plaintiffs to
`provide evidence beyond the Label ................................ 17
`Reversal without remand is appropriate ................................... 20
`
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d)
`
`
`
`Page
`
`III. The District Court Erred in Finding the LFT Patents Invalid ............. 21
`The district court mis-applied the law of inherency and
`A.
`Sandoz cannot retroactively cure that legal defect ................... 22
`The district court erred in its evaluation of the Pirespa
`Label .......................................................................................... 24
`The district court opinion cannot support invalidating
`claims requiring re-escalation to a full dose ............................. 27
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 30
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 31
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc.,
`633 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 10, 20
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydroxychloride Extended-Release Capsule
`Pat. Litig.,
`676 F. 3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 24
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 18
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Meds., Inc.,
`845 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................ 8, 15, 16
`Ferring B.V. v. Watson Lab’ys, Inc.-Fla.,
`764 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 14, 15, 17
`Glaxo, Inc. v. Novopharm, Ltd.,
`110 F.3d 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...................................................................passim
`GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`7 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2021), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, 25
`F.4th 949 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................ 4, 7
`Grunenthal GMBH v. Alkem Lab’ys Ltd.,
`919 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................. 6, 7, 21
`HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Lab’ys UT, Inc.,
`940 F.3d 680 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 5, 6
`Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc.,
`177 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 20
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship,
`564 U.S. 91 (2011) .............................................................................................. 18
`Myco Indus., Inc. v. BlephEx, LLC,
`955 F.3d 1 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................................ 19
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont’d)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .......................................................................... 24
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`835 F. App’x 578 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..................................................................... 14
`Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc.,
`705 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013), amended on reh’g, 728 F.3d 1332
`(Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................... 25
`Sunovion Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`731 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................passim
`Takeda Pharms. U.S.A., Inc. v. W.-Ward Pharm. Corp.,
`785 F.3d 625 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 15, 16
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 18, 19
`Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp.,
`225 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 29
`Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. W.-Ward Pharms. Int’l Ltd.,
`887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................passim
`Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. Roxane Lab’ys, Inc.,
`203 F. Supp. 3d 412 (D. Del. 2016) .............................................................. 13, 16
`Warner-Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp.,
`316 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 8
`Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`418 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 20
`YBM Magnex, Inc. v. ITC,
`145 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by
`Johnson & Johnston Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., Inc., 285 F.3d
`1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc) ............................................................................ 3
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 6 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont’d)
`
`Yee v. City of Escondido,
`503 U.S. 519 (1992) ............................................................................................ 19
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) ......................................................................................... 20
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 7 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`An ANDA applicant induces infringement when it includes label language
`
`that recommends, encourages, or promotes infringement. In reaching a contrary
`
`conclusion, the district court mis-applied controlling law.
`
`First, Sandoz’s Label induces infringement of the LFT Patents by including
`
`instructions to infringe. In adopting Sandoz’s argument that the Label cannot
`
`recommend, encourage, or promote infringement if it also proposes a non-
`
`infringing path, the district court erred as a matter of law. When the correct legal
`
`standard is applied to the undisputed contents of Sandoz’s Label, Sandoz induces
`
`infringement.
`
`Second, Sandoz’s Label also induces infringement of the DDI Patents.
`
`Sandoz escaped liability by arguing that Plaintiffs needed to come forward with
`
`real-world evidence of infringement. The district court faulted Plaintiffs because
`
`“[t]here was no evidence at trial of any patient receiving pirfenidone after being
`
`prescribed fluvoxamine, or of any patient taking [the two drugs] concurrently.”
`
`Appx33. This Court, however, has previously held where the label instructs,
`
`recommends, or encourages infringement, that is the end of the inquiry. In treating
`
`Sandoz’s Label as merely one piece of evidence relevant to the likelihood of future
`
`infringement—and not a particularly important one at that—the district court
`
`committed legal error. Sandoz’s other arguments aimed at avoiding reversal are
`
`likewise legally incorrect.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 8 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`The district court also erred in finding the LFT Patents obvious. Sandoz
`
`fails to defend several of the district court’s findings, choosing instead to mis-
`
`characterize both what the district court found and what Plaintiffs argued. The
`
`record, however, reveals that the district court committed reversible legal error in
`
`reaching the conclusion that the LFT Patents were obvious.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`The District Court Erred in Finding the LFT Patents Not Infringed
`A. The district court’s legal error is not entitled to deferential review
`
`Sandoz does not challenge the finding that Plaintiffs proved direct
`
`infringement with respect to the LFT Patents. Response Brief (“Opp’n”) 26. Nor
`
`does Sandoz dispute that where inducement is based on an ANDA-applicant’s
`
`label, the test is whether that label “encourages, promotes, or recommends”
`
`infringement. Compare Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief (“Br.”) 30, with Opp’n 26-27.
`
`There is also no dispute as to the contents of the Label. Appx13 (“The parties
`
`agree that Sandoz’s label . . . includes instructions for patients exhibiting Grade 2
`
`elevations in ALT and/or AST.”). Sandoz does not dispute that the language in the
`
`patent claims appears in the Label, Appx7171 (236:9-14), and that “[f]our of the
`
`five dose modification options provided in the Asymptomatic Section [of the
`
`Label] are covered by the Asserted Claims,” Appx14. Finally, the district court
`
`also found, and Sandoz does not dispute, that “some physicians will infringe by
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 9 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`implementing a dose modification covered by one of the Asserted Claims . . . .”
`
`Appx18.
`
`That leaves one question: does the undisputed language in the Label meet
`
`the legal test for encouragement, recommendation, or promotion? It does, as
`
`shown below. That is a legal question, and the district court’s failure to apply the
`
`law correctly is a legal error, entitled to no deference on appeal.
`
`Sandoz tries to turn that legal issue into a dispute of fact. In doing so,
`
`however, Sandoz mis-characterizes Plaintiffs’ arguments. Plaintiffs do not, for
`
`example, dispute that some of the relevant Label language is phrased in the passive
`
`voice while other language is more directive. Appx15. What Plaintiffs dispute is
`
`the legal effect of that language in ascertaining induced infringement. See infra
`
`Section I.B. That is a dispute of law.
`
`That conclusion is confirmed by the district court’s opinion, which is
`
`focused on interpreting various cases and not resolving disputed facts. “The
`
`meaning or interpretation of precedent is a question of law[.]” YBM Magnex, Inc.
`
`v. ITC, 145 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by
`
`Johnson & Johnston Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., Inc., 285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002) (en banc). The district court’s discussion of the LFT Patents includes
`
`practically no citation to any record evidence other than the Label itself. See
`
`Appx12-18. The district court simply applied (incorrect) legal principles to the
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 10 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`undisputed contents of the Label. Appx15-18. The body of the opinion1 cites to
`
`non-Label evidence on one occasion, Appx18, and that evidence supports Plaintiffs
`
`because it confirms that the Label instructs physicians to infringe.2
`
`GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 7 F.4th 1320
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2021), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, 25 F.4th 949 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
`
`(“GlaxoSmithKline” herein; in Opening Brief, “Glaxo”), is not to the contrary.
`
`That case involved a dispute as whether label language met the claim limitations
`
`despite Teva’s carve out—the “fact question” was “whether the post-MI LVD
`
`indication instructs a physician to prescribe carvedilol,” and whether that was
`
`“within the scope of the claims.” Id. at 1328, 1330-31. This case presents no
`
`similar fact question.
`
`B.
`
`The district court did not apply the correct legal standard
`
`Turning to the merits, the district court applied incorrect legal standards.
`
`First, it was legal error for the district court to require “active-voice verbs”
`
`to find induced infringement. Passive verbs can be recommendations, even where
`
`they appear in “clear contrast” with more “directive” language. Appx15. That is
`
`
`1 The district court also cited record evidence in two footnotes, see Appx14 n.5 &
`Appx17 n.6, but Plaintiffs do not challenge those factual findings here.
`2 The district court found that “evidence presented at trial confirmed that some
`physicians will infringe by implementing a dose modification covered by one of
`the Asserted Claims . . . .” Appx18. “Implement” generally means to put a plan
`into effect, i.e., to put the infringing plan in the Label into effect.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 11 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`confirmed by Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals
`
`International Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Vanda”). The asserted claim
`
`required “performing . . . a genotyping assay” to determine whether a patient had a
`
`poor metabolizer genotype, and if so, administering a half dose. Id. at 1121. The
`
`label in Vanda included directive language that mandated the dose reduction, but
`
`only passive-voice non-mandatory language regarding the genotyping test required
`
`by the patent claims: poor metabolizers “should have their dose reduced by one-
`
`half” and “[Genotyping tests] are available to identify” poor metabolizers. Id. at
`
`1131 (alterations in original) (emphases added). This Court held that these
`
`passive-voice references were sufficient to show inducement. Id. The district
`
`court erred in letting Sandoz off the hook for infringement because some of the
`
`Label’s recommendations were phrased in the passive voice.
`
`Second, the district court also erred in relying on HZNP Medicines LLC v.
`
`Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., 940 F.3d 680 (Fed. Cir. 2019), to conclude that
`
`Sandoz’s Label does not “encourage” infringement. Appx16-18. The district court
`
`interpreted HNZP as holding that where a label does not require infringement, and
`
`what the label discusses is “broader” than infringement, the label does not
`
`encourage infringement because there is no instruction to infringe. Appx17. That
`
`general rule does not flow from HNZP. Critically, the reason that the label in
`
`HZNP did not encourage infringement is because it merely said “if” a patient
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 12 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`wanted to perform a first infringing step, “then” the patient should take another
`
`potentially infringing step. HZNP, 940 F.3d at 702. There was no instruction to
`
`perform the first step at all.
`
`The Label here is different. Unlike in HZNP, the Label is not agnostic as to
`
`the “if” step. Patients do not choose whether to experience the “if” step of an
`
`asymptomatic Grade 2 elevation—it is an inevitable consequence of treatment for
`
`some patients. And for those patients, Sandoz’s Label provides four explicit
`
`options, each of which infringes. Appx14 (listing the explicit options); see also
`
`Appx13 (“Sandoz’s label . . . includes treatment instructions for patients exhibiting
`
`Grade 2 elevations in ALT and/or AST.”).
`
`Third, the district court apparently concluded that the law requires that
`
`infringing methods must be recommended over all non-infringing ones for there to
`
`be induced infringement. See Appx15 (“while the Asymptomatic Section lists
`
`some dose modifications covered by the Asserted Claims as potential treatment
`
`options, it does not affirmatively recommend any of them.”). That was a legal
`
`error. Sandoz relies on Grunenthal GMBH v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd., 919 F.3d
`
`1333 (Fed. Cir. 2019), but in that case the label at issue did not “implicitly or
`
`explicitly encourage or instruct users to take action that would inevitably lead to
`
`the [infringing use].” Id. at 1340 (emphasis added). Here, however, the Label
`
`indisputably includes explicit instructions for how to treat asymptomatic patients
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 13 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`with Grade 2 elevations in liver function tests in ways that, if followed, cause
`
`infringement. See Appx13 (no dispute that the Label includes treatment
`
`instructions for patients exhibiting Grade 2 elevations); Appx14 (discussing the
`
`Label’s instructions for the four infringing methods and calling them “options” for
`
`treatment). And the district court found as a factual matter that “the evidence
`
`presented at trial confirmed that some physicians will infringe by implementing a
`
`dose modification covered by one of the Asserted Claims [of the LFT
`
`Patents] . . . .” Appx18 (emphasis added).
`
`To be sure, the district court also found that the Label implicitly allows for a
`
`non-infringing method of treatment, i.e., discontinuing treatment. See Opp’n 28
`
`n.11 (citing Appx14). But then, at best for Sandoz and unlike in Grunenthal, the
`
`Label here instructs both infringing options (continued treatment) and a non-
`
`infringing option (permanent discontinuation). The Label still induces
`
`infringement when treatment is continued. As Grunenthal noted, “[t]he pertinent
`
`question is whether the proposed label instructs users to perform the patented
`
`method.” 919 F.3d at 1339 (quoting AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc., 633 F.3d
`
`1042, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Sandoz’s Label does. Indeed, GlaxoSmithKline
`
`rejected Sandoz’s argument that a recommendation not to infringe “somehow
`
`obviates infringement” where, as here, there is also a recommendation to infringe.
`
`7 F.4th at 1329-30.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 14 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`Fourth, the district court also committed legal error by relying in part on the
`
`lack of prevalence of the infringing activity to find no infringement. Appx17 n.6;
`
`see Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Meds., Inc., 845 F.3d 1357, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017) (“[W]e have not required evidence regarding the general prevalence of the
`
`induced activity.”). Sandoz observes that this Court has held that “where a product
`
`has substantial non-infringing uses . . . , intent to induce infringement cannot be
`
`inferred . . . .” Opp’n 34 (quoting Warner-Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp., 316 F.3d
`
`1348, 1363-64 [sic, 1365] (Fed. Cir. 2003)). The district court quoted Warner-
`
`Lambert for this proposition, too. Appx17-18 n.6. But Warner-Lambert was a
`
`situation where the label contained no discussion of the infringing method at all
`
`because the drug at issue was not approved for the patented use. See 316 F.3d at
`
`1364-65. There, the fact that a product had non-infringing uses was relevant to
`
`assess intent to induce the infringing conduct. Here, however, the Label explicitly
`
`instructs how to infringe. Thus, the district court’s and Sandoz’s “reliance on
`
`Warner-Lambert, an off-label use case, is misplaced.” Vanda, 887 F.3d at 1132.
`
`C. Applying the correct standard, Sandoz’s Label induces
`infringement
`
`Sandoz’s Label warns that some patients may experience elevated liver
`
`enzymes and recommends that “[t]he full daily dosage may be maintained, if
`
`clinically appropriate, or reduced or interrupted (e.g., until liver chemistry tests are
`
`within normal limits) with subsequent re-titration to the full dosage as tolerated.”
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 15 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`Appx16750. There is no dispute that this instructs how to implement the
`
`infringing methods. Appx13, Appx14. There is also no dispute that those
`
`instructions will be followed some of the time. Appx18.
`
`And there is more. Sandoz’s Label encourages the reader to “[c]onsider
`
`temporary dosage reduction, treatment interruption, or discontinuation for
`
`management of adverse reactions.” Appx16749 (emphasis added). The infringing
`
`methods are also “promoted” over permanently discontinuing treatment, as it is the
`
`infringing methods that are explicitly and indisputably disclosed. Appx14.
`
`Sandoz argues that none of this is a recommendation, citing the testimony of
`
`its expert. Opp’n 28 (citing Appx7290 (355:8-12)). The following colloquy
`
`occurred at trial:
`
`Q. So now, if we turn to the asymptomatic grade 2
`patients, are there any recommendations in the label for
`that you just point out?
`A. So I think that those are the bullets that are
`underneath the -- the introduction there. Discontinuing
`confounding medications, excluding other causes,
`monitoring the patient closely, including repeating the
`liver chemistry tests, and then we have the options down
`below for therapy.
`Appx7289 (354:14-21) (emphases added). The expert did observe that none of
`
`these “options” was “recommended over the other” because different infringing
`
`methods were mentioned in the Label and “[o]nly one thing can be done” at a time.
`
`Appx7290-7291 (355:8-356:10). Read fairly, Sandoz’s expert agreed that the
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 16 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`Label gives a number of recommended options, any one of which could be selected
`
`at a given time.
`
`It is of no moment that doctors retain discretion to pick the most appropriate
`
`option. The Label states “modify the dosage as follows,” then explicitly instructs
`
`doctors how to modify the dosages in infringing ways. This is more directive than
`
`the label in Vanda, which merely noted that tests (which needed to be taken in
`
`order to infringe) “are available.” Vanda, 887 F.3d at 1131. It is also more
`
`directive than the label in AstraZeneca, where, as Sandoz acknowledges, the label
`
`advised that the downward-titration that sometimes led to infringement was
`
`“desirable,” not mandatory. Opp’n 33-34 (quoting AstraZeneca, 633 F.3d at
`
`1057).
`
`Moreover, discretion to choose among options does not negate the
`
`recommendation, encouragement, or promotion of infringement. As Sandoz’s
`
`expert confirmed, only one path can be followed at a time. Appx7290-7291
`
`(355:20-356:10). Sandoz intends that prescribers pick an infringing path some of
`
`the time, and so intends that there be infringement. As this court said in Vanda,
`
`“[e]ven if not every practitioner will prescribe an infringing dose, that the target
`
`dose range ‘instructs users to perform the patented method’ is sufficient to ‘provide
`
`evidence of [the accused infringer’s] affirmative intent to induce infringement.’”
`
`887 F.3d at 1132 (quoting AstraZeneca, 633 F.3d at 1060).
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 17 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`II. The District Court Erred in Finding the DDI Patents Not Infringed
`Sandoz’s insistence that it can market an ANDA product with a label that
`
`recommends infringement and yet not be liable for infringement is contrary to
`
`Federal Circuit law.
`
`A.
`
`Sandoz’s Label recommends infringement
`
`In a footnote, Sandoz now claims that there might be a dispute as to whether
`
`the language in its Label corresponds to the DDI Patent claims. Opp’n 46 n.16.
`
`The language corresponds to the claimed dose modifications—discontinuing
`
`fluvoxamine (claim 6, ’383 patent), or concurrently administering fluvoxamine and
`
`a specific reduced dose of pirfenidone (claims 3 & 9, ’002 patent), and so
`
`recommends infringement. See Br. 13, 16-17. From Sandoz’s Label:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Discontinue fluvoxamine prior to administration of pirfenidone or
`reduce to 267 mg three times a day.” Appx16749.
`
`“Use of fluvoxamine or other strong CYP1A2 inhibitors should be
`discontinued prior to administration of pirfenidone and avoided during
`pirfenidone treatment. In the event that fluvoxamine or other strong
`CYP1A2 inhibitors are the only drug of choice, dosage reductions are
`recommended.” Appx16753.
`
`“2.4 Dosage Modification due to Drug Interactions,” “Strong CYP1A2
`Inhibitors (e.g., fluvoxamine, enoxacin),” “Reduce pirfenidone tablets
`to 267 mg three times a day (801 mg/day).” Appx16751.
`
`“The contents of the label itself may permit the inference of specific intent to
`
`encourage, recommend, or promote infringement.” Vanda, 887 F.3d at 1129. As
`
`the above shows, Sandoz’s Label recommends what the asserted claims require.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 18 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`This is not a case where the label is silent on infringement or requires expert
`
`analysis to explain how the label’s indications match up against the indications in
`
`the patent.
`
`B. Where the Label recommends infringement, that is dispositive
`1.
`
`There is no requirement for real-world evidence to show
`direct infringement
`
`The district court held that “[t]he presence of language that ‘encourages,
`
`recommends or promotes’ an infringing use on a proposed label, without any
`
`additional evidence showing such an infringing use will in fact occur, especially
`
`where there is evidence that an infringing use likely will not occur, is insufficient
`
`for a finding of induced infringement.” Appx32 (emphasis added). That is not the
`
`law, and such a rule would conflict with this Court’s prior cases. In Vanda and
`
`other decisions, this Court did not require real-world evidence for the patent owner
`
`in a Hatch-Waxman case to succeed on its claim of induced infringement (with its
`
`subsidiary direct infringement component) even in cases where there was
`
`evidence that infringement might never occur in the real world. See Vanda, 887
`
`F.3d at 1129-30; see also Br. 36-39.
`
`Sandoz says that this case presents a “different situation” because here
`
`“there is evidence that no doctor would perform the claimed methods.” Opp’n 39.
`
`But in Vanda, the district court determined that “as a practical matter” doctors
`
`might not infringe the asserted claims by conducting the required genotyping,
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 19 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. Roxane Lab’ys, Inc., 203 F. Supp. 3d 412, 434 (D. Del.
`
`2016) (“Vanda Pharms. Inc.”), and this Court still did not resolve whether there
`
`was evidence of real world infringement in the record. Vanda, 887 F.3d at 1129.3
`
`2.
`
`An ANDA application resolves the infringement question
`when it provides a clear recommendation to infringe
`
`Sandoz has not established that real-world evidence is required where the
`
`Label explicitly recommends infringement. Off-label cases are different, see
`
`Vanda, 887 F.3d at 1132-33, but this is not an off-label case, and Sandoz’s own
`
`authorities confirm the importance of this distinction.
`
`Sandoz relies on Glaxo, Inc. v. Novopharm, Ltd., 110 F.3d 1562 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1997) and its progeny as holding that it is always appropriate to look at evidence
`
`outside the label. However, as this Court has explained, in Glaxo the Court
`
`“endorsed the district court’s reference to evidence including biobatch data and
`
`actual samples of the generic composition . . . as relevant to the infringement
`
`inquiry because the ANDA specification itself did not resolve the question of
`
`infringement in the first instance. . . . However, the converse must also be true:
`
`if an ANDA specification defines a compound such that it meets the limitations of
`
`an asserted claim, then there is almost never a genuine issue of material fact that
`
`
`3 West-Ward contended that the claims “require that a single physician administer
`iloperidone to both poor and non-poor CYP2D6 metabolizers . . . .” Vanda, 887
`F.3d at 1129 (emphasis added). If so, there would have been no evidence of real-
`world infringement in the record—a dispute this Court saw no need to address.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 20 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`the claim is infringed.” Sunovion Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 731
`
`F.3d 1271, 1279-80 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (emphases added) (internal citation omitted).
`
`Thus, as this Court elaborated in Sunovion, in cases like Glaxo, where the
`
`ANDA application does not resolve the question of infringement, evidence other
`
`than the ANDA application can be relevant. However, evidence outside of the
`
`ANDA application “cannot override the conclusion that when a drug manufacturer
`
`seeks FDA approval to market a generic compound within the scope of a valid
`
`patent, it is an infringement as a matter of law.” Id. at 1280 (emphasis added).
`
`That includes infringement of patents like these, claiming a use of a drug. See Par
`
`Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 835 F. App’x 578, 585-86 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “Even
`
`where internal documents suggest that a generic product will not meet a claim
`
`limitation in practice, representations about the ANDA’s scope control the
`
`infringement analysis.” Id. at 586. Infringement results even where the generic
`
`expects or even promises that infringement will not happen. “Simply saying ‘But I
`
`won’t do it’ is not enough to avoid infringement.” Sunovion, 731 F.3d at 1280.
`
`Ferring, on which Sandoz also relies, confirms this point. “In some cases,
`
`the ANDA specification directly resolves the infringement question because it
`
`defines a proposed generic product in a manner that either meets the limitations of
`
`an asserted patent claim or is outside the scope of such a claim. In cases in which
`
`the ANDA specification does not resolve the infringement question in the first
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 25 Page: 21 Filed: 07/05/2022
`
`
`
`instance, we have endorsed the district court’s reference to relevant evidence . . . .”
`
`Ferring B.V. v. Watson Lab’ys, Inc.-Fla., 764 F.3d 1401, 1408-09 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(internal citations omitted).
`
`In short, where, as here, the ANDA application resolves the question of
`
`infringement, it does so “as a matter of law.” Sunovion, 731 F.3d at 1280. Even if,
`
`contrary to the trial record, Sandoz had proved that infringement likely will never
`
`happen, that would be akin to “saying ‘But I won’t do it,’” which is legally
`
`insufficient. Id. “If it had no intent to infringe, [Sandoz] should not have
`
`requested, or should not accept, approval to market a product within the scope of
`
`the claim.” Id. at 1279.
`
`Neither Eli Lilly nor Takeda is to the contrary.
`
`In Eli Lilly, the court looked to evidence outside the ANDA label to address
`
`the distinct issue of divided infringement. See Opp’n 37. In particular, real-world
`
`evidence was considered to determine whether “physicians ‘condition’ pemetrexed
`
`treatment on the admini

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill 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