Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. ___ (2015),[1] is a landmark patent Supreme Court case disputing over the Copaxone patent.[2][3] The Court held that, when reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of its construction of a patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error,” not a de novo, standard of review.[2][3][1]

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
Argued October 15, 2014
Decided January 20, 2015
Full case nameTeva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
Docket no.13-854
Citations574 U.S. ___ (more)
135 S. Ct. 831; 190 L. Ed. 2d 719; 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4897; 83 U.S.L.W. 4055; 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1269
Case history
Prior810 F. Supp. 2d 578 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); 876 F. Supp. 2d 295 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, 723 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013); stay denied, 134 S.Ct. 1621 (2014); cert. granted, 134 S.Ct. 1761 (2014)
SubsequentOn remand, 789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Holding
When reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of its construction of a patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error,” not a de novo, standard of review.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityBreyer, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentThomas, joined by Alito
Laws applied
F.R.C.P. 52(a)(6)

Facts and procedural history

The case originated in the Southern District of New York, where Sandoz sued to invalidate Teva's patent on a drug for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. In the Markman hearing, Sandoz argued that a claim was fatally indefinite for failing to identify which of three possible meanings a particular claim term, related to the molecular weight of a component of the drug, should be interpreted to have. The district court judge held that the claim term was definite, and that a "person of ordinary skill in the art" would interpret the term "molecular weight" to mean the "peak average molecular weight", that is, the weight of the molecule most prevalent in the mixture.[4] In doing so, the judge relied in part on expert witness testimony.

Sandoz appealed to the Federal Circuit, which reviewed the claim under a 'de novo' standard, decided that the claim term was fatally indefinite, and hence that the patent was invalid.[5]

Teva appealed to the US Supreme Court and won.

gollark: I wrote one, but don't know if I have it.
gollark: There are some CC/OC programs for that.
gollark: I think half the power output is going just on keeping our stuff stored and accessible.
gollark: That takes lots of RF. We only have a single RTG, solar panel, and tree oil setup (which can do 120RF/t *peak*, but probably only 20 sustained).
gollark: We don't have Mekanism, but I assume you mean "automining in general".

References
  1. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, 574 U.S. ___ (2015).
  2. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., SCOTUSblog, (last visited July 4, 2018).
  3. Lyle Denniston, New dispute over Copaxone patent, SCOTUSblog (January 26, 2015).
  4. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 810 F. Supp. 2d 578 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
  5. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 723 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.