Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc.

 
APPEAL NO.
21-1876
OP. BELOW
DCT
OPINION
TBD
SUBJECT
Patent
AUTHOR
TBD

Issue(s) Presented

“Whether the district court erred in rejecting Appellant’s obviousness-type double patenting invalidity defense against the ‘788 patent by holding that the earlier-expiring ‘219 patent does not qualify as a double patenting reference against the later-expiring, commonly owned ‘788 patent, where the ‘788 patent expires later on account of having received a patent term adjustment pursuant to 35 U.S.C. ยง154(b).”

Posts About this Case