GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

 
APPEAL NO.
18-1976
OP. BELOW
DCT
SUBJECT
Patent
AUTHOR
Newman

Issue(s) Presented

“Whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict that Teva willfully induced infringement of GSK’s patented method of treating congestive heart failure where: (a) Teva encouraged the infringing use in promotional materials communicated to doctors, such as product catalogs, product reference guides, press releases, and product information on its website, including by advertising that its product should be used just like GSK’s Coreg® product; (b) Teva provided instructions for the infringing use on the labels it distributed with its generic drug product and encouraged doctors to read the labels; (c) GSK’s expert testified that Teva’s promotional materials and labels caused him and other physicians to use Teva’s product just like Coreg® to treat congestive heart failure in an infringing manner; and (d) Teva intended to induce physicians to prescribe its generic carvedilol in an infringing manner.”

Holding

“We conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s findings of induced infringement, throughout the term of the ’000 patent, on the entirety of the documentary and testimonial record concerning liability before and after Teva amended its label. The grant of JMOL is reversed; we remand for entry of judgment on the verdict. . . . We have considered all of Teva’s arguments, and conclude that the jury instructions are in conformity to law. The damages verdict is not otherwise challenged, and is sustained.”