![]() ![]() Against this backdrop, we turn to the details of Appellants’ invalidity theories. Indeed, “the more distantly related two chemical structures are, the less probable it will be that they have the same biological effect.” J.A. DISCUSSION Relevant to “the assessment of expectation of success” in all three of Appellants’ invalidity theories, Takeda, 2020 WL 549594, at *11, is the undisputed factual finding that “in the relevant art of pharmaceutical development, very small changes in molecular structure can have dramatic effects on the properties of the molecule,” id. Even assuming some of those challenges have merit, we discern no clear error in the district court’s finding that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to make Appellants’ proposed scaffold and isosteric replacements with a reasonable expectation of success. TORRENT 3 findings by the district court. 1 Case: 20-1552 Document: 66 Page: 3 TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Takeda refers to Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., and Takeda Ireland Limited. In their appeal, Appellants challenge several different fact Torrent refers to Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Following a two-day bench trial and extensive testimony from three different experts, the district court concluded Appellants had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the challenged claims are invalid for either statutory obviousness or non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting. The claims at issue are directed to alogliptin, a uracil-containing DPP-IV inhibitor useful for treating type II diabetes, and pharmaceutical salts thereof. Torrent and Indoco (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the district court’s final judgment on Appellants’ invalidity challenges to claims 4 and 12 of U.S. _ Before DYK, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. Also represented by ALISON MICHELLE HEYDORN, GEORGE C. IVAN MICHAEL POULLAOS, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for defendant-appellant Indoco Remedies Ltd. Also represented by CEDRIC CHIA YANG TAN, YUN WEI. KEETO SABHARWAL, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellants Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Torrent Pharma Inc. WINCHESTER, Chicago, IL LISAMARIE LOGIUDICE, New Case: 20-1552 Document: 66 Page: 2 Filed: TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY v. ![]() CASTANIAS, Jones Day, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., TORRENT PHARMA INC., Defendants-Appellants INDOCO REMEDIES LTD., Defendant-Appellant _ 2020-1552, 2020-1598 _ Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in Nos. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit _ TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LTD., TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC., TAKEDA IRELAND LIMITED, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Case: 20-1552 Document: 66 Page: 1 Filed: NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |