ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC LLC LLC LLC (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Grunenthal GmbH, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Actavis Inc., Actavis South Atlantic LLC, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, ThoRx Laboratories, Inc., Barr Laboratories, Inc., Ranbaxy, Inc., Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Impax Laboratories, Inc., Defendants-Appellants

2015-2021, 2015-2022, 2015-2023, 2015-2024, 2015-2025, 2015-2026, 2015-2028, 2015-2031, 2015-2033, 2015-2034, 2015-2035, 2015-2041, 2015-2042, 2015-2046, 2015-2047, 2015-2049, 2015-2059, 2015-2060, 2016-1025, 2016-1060, 2016-1117, 2016-1118

Decided: June 29, 2018

Martin Jay Black, Esq., Attorney, Sharon K. Gagliardi, Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Blake Greene, Dechert LLP, Austin, TX, Jonathan Loeb, Dechert LLP, Mountain View, CA, Robert Rhoad, Dechert LLP, Princeton, NJ, for Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. Charles E. Lipsey, Attorney, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA, Krista E. Bianco, Attorney, Jennifer Howe Roscetti, Erin McGeehan Sommers, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant Grunenthal GmbH Charles A. Weiss, Attorney, Nicholas P. Chiara, Howard S. Suh, Eric H. Yecies, Holland & Knight, LLP, New York, NY, William H. Burgess, John C. O'Quinn, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, James F. Hurst, Attorney, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellants Actavis Inc., Actavis South Atlantic LLC Jacob M. Holdreith, Brenda L. Joly, Jamie R. Kurtz, Attorneys, Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN, Oren D. Langer, Esq., Robins Kaplan LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellants Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC Elizabeth Holland, Esq., Brian Robinson, Huiya Wu, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant Barr Laboratories, Inc. Maureen L. Rurka, George C. Lombardi, Esq., Kevin E. Warner, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL, Scott R. Samay, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellants Impax Laboratories, Inc., ThoRx Laboratories, Inc. William R. Zimmerman, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Washington, DC, Carol Pitzel Cruz, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellants Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ranbaxy, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. Alan B. Clement, Locke Lord LLP, New York, NY, Hugh S. Balsam, Esq., Scott B. Feder, Esq., Myoka Kim Goodin, Esq., Locke Lord LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant Roxane Laboratories, Inc. Charles A. Weiss, Attorney, Nicholas P. Chiara, Eric H. Yecies, Holland & Knight, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

ON MOTION

ORDER

In this action, Grünenthal GmbH appealed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York’s judgments related to Grünenthal’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,114,383 and 8,309,060. We initially granted Grünenthal’s motion to stay its appeals, pending two specific actions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that Grünenthal argued were likely to moot its appeals. See generally Docket Nos. 197, 203, 230. Grünenthal then moved to extend the stay, reasoning that neither of those actions had materialized. See generally Docket No. 230. We exercised our discretion to lift the stay, then dismissed Grünenthal’s appeals without prejudice. See Endo Pharm. Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., ––– F. App’x ––––,––––, No. 2015-2021, 2018 WL 2230923, at *1 n.1 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2018).

Grünenthal now moves to: (1) vacate the district court’s judgments deciding issues related to its two patents; and (2) remand to the court with instructions to dismiss all claims and defenses related to those patents consistent with vacatur. See generally Docket No. 233. Grünenthal also conditionally moves to extend the dead-line to file its petition for panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc. See generally Docket Nos. 239, 242. Kashiv Pharma, LLC, not a party to the appeals, moves for leave to intervene to oppose Grünenthal’s motion for vacatur. See generally Docket No. 237.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) We vacate our dismissal of Grünenthal’s appeals and reinstate them.

(2) We remand the appeals to the district court for the limited purpose of its consideration of Grünenthal’s motion for vacatur. We retain jurisdiction so that any of the parties may seek appellate review by notifying the Clerk of the Court within thirty days of entry of the district court’s decision on remand. Grünenthal’s appeals are held in abeyance pending the resolution of its motion for vacatur by the district court.

(3) We deny Grünenthal’s conditional motions and Kashiv’s motion.

Per Curiam.