October 8, 2020
Authored and Edited by Richard Hildreth III; Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Justin J. Hasford; Caitlin E. O'Connell
In GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Nos. 2018-1976, 2018-2023 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2020), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of Teva’s motion for judgment of non-infringement as a matter of law.
GlaxoSmithKline sued Teva for induced infringement of Reissue Patent No. RE40,000, which is directed to a method of treating congestive heart failure with carvedilol. Teva sought to evade liability for induced infringement by marketing its product with a “skinny label” pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(viii). “Skinny labeling” refers to the practice by which a drug manufacturer seeks approval for some, but not all, of the indications for which the branded drug has been approved. The district court granted Teva’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) because it found no proof that Teva had actually caused physicians to prescribe generic carvedilol to treat congestive heart failure. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s JMOL order, holding that the district court applied an incorrect standard. The Court explained that induced infringement should be found when the provider of an identical product knows of and markets that product for intended direct infringing activity. At trial, GSK introduced promotional materials, press releases, product catalogs, FDA labels, and testimony of witnesses from both sides indicating that Teva marketed its generic product for the treatment of heart failure. Thus, substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of induced infringement and Teva’s JMOL motion should have been denied.
In dissent, Chief Judge Prost agreed with the district court’s JMOL analysis and argued that the majority’s holding nullified Congress’s statutory provision for skinny labels.
Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.