United States Federal Circuit

In a patent case involving plaintiffs-Aventis' drug Lovenox, a drug effective in preventing blood clotting while minimizing the possibility of hemorrhaging, a ruling holding plaintiff's patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in determining that half-life comparisons were intended to show compositional differences to address the anticipation rejection; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that comparison of half-lives at different doses to demonstrate a difference in property was routine practice; and 3) there was sufficient evidence to showing an intent to deceive on the part of plaintiff's expert.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/14/2008
• Published 05/14/2008

Judges

• PROST, Circuit Judge., Before RADER, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Donald R. Dunner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants.   With him on the brief were Allen M. Sokal, Bryan C. Diner, and Esther H. Lim, of Washington, DC, and Michael J. McCabe II, of Atlanta, GA., Meredith Martin Addy, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, of Chicago, IL, for amicus curiae, Sandoz, Inc. With her on the brief were Glen P. Belvis and C. Noel Kaman.


• For Appellees:
  
• Jan P. Weir, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, of Newport Beach, CA, argued for defendant-appellee Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. With him on the brief were Steven M. Hanle and Jennifer A. Trusso., Francis C. Lynch, Goodwin Procter LLP, of Boston, MA, argued for defendant-appellee Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. With him on the brief were Laurie S. Gill and John T. Bennett.