This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in an international trade case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. v. Torrent Pharmaceutical Ltd. (Nonprecedential)
Torrent and Indoco (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the district court’s final judgment on Appellants’ invalidity challenges to claims 4 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,807,689, owned by Takeda. See Takeda Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Torrent Pharm. Ltd., No. 2:17-cv-03186-SRC-CLW, 2020 WL 549594, at *26 (D.N.J. Feb. 4, 2020) (Takeda). The claims at issue are directed to alogliptin, a uracil-containing DPP-IV inhibitor useful for treating type II diabetes, and pharmaceutical salts thereof. Following a two-day bench trial and extensive testimony from three different experts, the district court concluded Appellants had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the challenged claims are invalid for either statutory obviousness or non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting. In their appeal, Appellants challenge several different fact findings by the district court. Even assuming some of those challenges have merit, we discern no clear error in the district court’s finding that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to make Appellants’ proposed scaffold and isosteric replacements with a reasonable expectation of success. On that basis, we affirm.
Home Products International, Inc. v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Target Corporation (“Target”) seeks appellate review of an order of the Court of International Trade (“CIT”). See Home Prod. Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 405 F. Supp. 3d 1368 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019). Because Target was not a party to the CIT action and has not preserved any argument challenging the CIT’s denial of its motion to intervene, we dismiss Target’s nonparty appeal.