This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order, all in patent disputes involving Sanofi-Aventis and Mylan entities originating in either federal district court or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nonprecedential)
These consolidated appeals are from the final written decisions in six inter partes reviews by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board—IPR2018-01670, IPR2018-01675, IPR2018- 01676, IPR2018-01678, IPR2019-00122, and IPR2019- 00979. The reviews involved claims of three patents owned by Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH—claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent No. 8,679,069, claims 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,603,044, and claims 1–6, 12–18, 20, 23, 26– 30, 32, 33, 36, and 38–40 of U.S. Patent No. 8,992,486. The Board held all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness. Sanofi appeals. We affirm.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (“Sanofi”) owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8,992,486 (“the ’486 Patent”) and 9,526,844 (“the ’844 Patent”). The patents, which relate to pen-type injectors for administering medicinal products from a multidose cartridge where the user may set the injection dose, share a common specification and claim priority to GB Patent Application No. 0304822.0 (“GB Application”). ’844 Patent col. 1 ll. 6–21, 25–29.
These consolidated appeals arise from three inter partes reviews (“IPRs”). On appeal, Sanofi challenges the Board’s determinations that (1) substitute claims 58–64 of the ’486 Patent would have been obvious over Steenfeldt-Jensen with Klitgaard, Atterbury, and/or Burroughs; (2) original claims 21–30 of the ’844 Patent would have been obvious over Steenfeldt-Jensen or Steenfeldt-Jensen with Klitgaard; and (3) because the GB Application does not provide written description support for an internally-threaded piston rod, original claims 21–30 of the ’844 Patent are not entitled to claim priority to the GB Application and substitute claims 31–38 of the ’844 Patent are unsupported amendments. We affirm.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
U.S. Patent No. 9,604,008 (the ’008 patent), owned by Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (Sanofi), is directed to a “drive mechanism for use in a drug delivery device.” ’008 patent, col. 17, l. 28. In this inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) held that claims 1, 7, 8, and 17 of the ’008 patent were unpatentable as obvious over a combination of two prior art references—Møller (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0052578) and Steenfeldt-Jensen (U.S. Patent No. 6,235,004). Sanofi appeals. We affirm.
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Mylan GmbH (Nonprecedential Order)
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie (collectively, “Sanofi”) filed a patent infringement suit against Mylan GmbH, Biocon Ltd., Biocon Research Ltd., Biocon Sdn.Bhd., and Biocon S.A. (collectively, “Mylan”) in the District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting Mylan infringed claims 21, 22, 25, and 30 of Sanofi’s U.S. Patent No. 9,526,844 (“the ’844 Patent”). The district court found no infringement of the asserted claims and that the asserted claims are invalid for lack of written description. Sanofi appeals.
We affirmed today in a related appeal, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, et al. v. Mylan GmbH, et al., No. 2020-2068, the final written decision by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2018-01680 holding that claims 21–30 of the ’844 Patent would have been unpatentable as anticipated and/or obvious. Accordingly, Sanofi’s appeal from the district court’s ruling is moot.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
Sanofi’s appeal in Appeal No. 2021-1262 is dismissed as moot.