Mylan’s Preliminary Injunction Against Aurobindo Affirmed

Federal CircuitMylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., (Fed. Cir. May 19, 2017) (Before Lourie, Moore, and Reyna, J.) (Opinion for the court, Lourie, J.)

The Eastern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction against Aurobindo in favor of Mylan. On appeal, Aurobindo challenged three district court findings: 1) it was likely that Aurobindo infringed; 2) Aurobindo failed to raise a substantial question of validity; and 3) there was irreparable harm to Mylan.  The Federal Circuit found that, while the district court made some errors, it correctly analyzed one of the three Mylan patents, and the preliminary injunction was affirmed.

At issue were three patents concerning isosulfan blue (“ISB”), a dye used to map lymph nodes.  The Court lumped the two “process patents” together, analyzing them separately from the “purity patent.”

The Court found that the district court erred in its analysis of the process patents and the likelihood of success on the merits.  It misapplied the “way” portion of the function-way-result (FWR) test, because it failed to address the prong entirely, or it did not adequately consider Aurobindo’s arguments (that the accused and patented processes had different oxidation strengths, plus the use of an acid in the accused process, which the patents explicitly omitted).  The Court also suggested an “insubstantial differences” analysis, because that “non-mechanical cases may not be well-suited to consideration under the FWR test . . . .”

As to the purity patent, the Court found no error in the district court’s finding of a lack of a substantial question as to validity, which was the only finding challenged.  The district court adequately explained that there was a lack of anticipation because of weak evidence. There was a lack of obviousness because the claims would “not necessarily have been prima facie obvious over the prior art mixture of (less pure) ISB . . . .” Further, the use of “HPLC” was sufficiently definite because HPLC is a common way of designating purity.  Further, the evidence of secondary considerations, including failure of others, weighed in favor of validity.

Finally, the Court stated that the district court did not err in its irreparable harm analysis.  It was not clear error for the court to find that: 1) Mylan would continue to suffer lost sales, etc.; 2) there was a causal nexus because the infringing product would not be on the market “if it had not obtained FDA approval for a product that will likely be found” infringing; and 3) without infringing the patents, the defendant would not be able to make its product.

The district court’s analysis as to the purity patent was upheld in its entirety, and the preliminary injunction was affirmed.

The Court affirmed a preliminary injunction against an accused product, although asserted process patents were not likely infringed, because the product did likely infringe a product patent, the patent was likely valid, and the patentee would suffer irreparable harm from ongoing infringement.



The Author

Joseph Robinson

Joseph Robinson has over 20 years of experience in all aspects of intellectual property law. He focuses his practice in the pharmaceutical, life sciences, biotechnology, and medical device fields. His practice encompasses litigation, including Hatch-Waxman litigation; licensing; counseling; due diligence; and patent and trademark prosecution. He has served as litigation counsel in a variety of patent and trademark disputes in many different jurisdictions, and has also served as appellate counsel before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Joe also focuses on complex inter partes matters before the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, inventorship disputes, reexaminations and reissues. His experience includes numerous interferences, a particular advantage in new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office post-grant proceedings. He also counsels on patent–related U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues, including citizen petitions, Orange Book listing, and trademark issues. For more information and to contact Joe please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Joseph Robinson

Robert Schaffer is an intellectual property partner at Troutman Sanders. Bob applies more than 30 years of experience to IP counseling and litigation. His work includes patent procurement, strategic planning and transactional advice, due diligence investigations, district court patent cases, and Federal Circuit appeals. He regularly handles complex and high-profile domestic and international patent portfolios, intellectual property agreements and licensing, IP evaluations for collaborations, mergers, and acquisitions. In disputed court cases Bob’s work includes representing and counseling client in ANDA litigations, complex patent infringement cases and appeals, and multidistrict and international cases. In disputed Patent Office matters his work includes representing and counseling clients in interferences, reexaminations, reissues, post-grant proceedings, and in European Oppositions. For more information and to contact Bob please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently No Comments comments.