Cases

*925ON MOTION ORDER Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Inc. move to dismiss their appeal. Upon consideration thereof, It Is Ordered That: (1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

CHEN, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from the Final Written Decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) in two consolidated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283 (the ’283 patent), owned by Novartis AG and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp. (collectively, Novartis). The Board inst

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. XAVIER BECERRA, et al., No. 24-cv-02234 (DLF) Defendants. and MSN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., et al., Intervenor-Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINIO

Case: 21-1154 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 11/05/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CELGENE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., MYLAN INC., MYLAN N.V., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2021-1154 ______________________

Case: 21-1070 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 01/03/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC., AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD., AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC., DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD., EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,

Case: 21-1070 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 06/21/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC., AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD., AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC., DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD., EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,

Case: 21-1070 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 01/03/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC., AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD., AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC., DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD., EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,

Case: 21-1070 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 06/21/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC., AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD., AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC., DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD., EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,

Case: 20-1933 Document: 89 Page: 1 Filed: 03/16/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BIOGEN INTERNATIONAL GMBH, BIOGEN MA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2020-1933 ______________________ App

Stoll, Circuit Judge. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Ltd ("West-Ward") 1 appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding that claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 8,410

Case: 20-1933 Document: 89 Page: 1 Filed: 03/16/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BIOGEN INTERNATIONAL GMBH, BIOGEN MA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2020-1933 ______________________ App

348 F.3d 992 SCHERING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.GENEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and Novartis Corporation, andTeva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., andAndrx Corporation, Andrx Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., andMylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., andWyeth, ESI-Lederle, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, and Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (formerly American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, and Whitehall Robb

339 F.3d 1373 SCHERING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.GENEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and Novartis Corporation, and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Andrx Corporation, Andrx Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Wyeth, ESI-Lederle, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, and Wyeth Consumer Healthcare (formerly American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, and Whitehall Robbins Healthc

OPINION SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This action arises out of the filing of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”) by Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) seeking to market generic versions of Tarceva® (eriotinib tablets), used to treat certain indications of non-small cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer. Plaintiff OS

WALLACH, Circuit Judge. The instant appeals concern inter partes reviews of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,316,023 (“the ’023 patent”) and 6,335,031 (“the ’031 patent”) (together, “the Patents-in-Suit”). In two separate final written decisions, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) found that various claims of the Patents-in-Suit (“the Ass

*434"[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.... [which is] the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application."

MEMORANDUM GREGORY M. SLEET, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION In this patent infringement action, plaintiffs Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC, Sugen, Inc., C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V., Pfizer Pharmaceuticals LLC, and PF Prism C.V. (collectively, “Pfizer”) allege that pharmaceutical products proposed by de

LOURIE, Circuit Judge, dissenting from denial of petition for rehearing en banc. I respectfully dissent from the court’s decision not to hear this case en banc. I do so because it is an extraordinary decision, effectively precluding virtually all patents on human metabolites of drugs. It thus qualifies as an issue of exceptional importance, justifying en banc consideration. The holding of t

RADER, Circuit Judge. On summary judgment, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey determined that claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 4,659,716 (the '716 patent) are invalid. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., No. 98-1259, 2002 WL 2001552 (D.N.J. Aug.8, 2002). Because the district court correctly found that U.S. Patent No. 4,282,233 (the '233 patent) inherently anticipates claims 1 and 3

Reyna, Circuit Judge. *1035 In this consolidated appeal, Appellant Yeda Research & Development Co., Ltd. challenges the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's final written decisions finding the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,232,250, 8,399,413, and 8,969,302 unpatentable as obvious in three