Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.
719 F.3d 1346
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Novo Nordisk appeals a district court ruling that claim 4 of the '358 patent is invalid as obvious and that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct; the court affirms in part and reverses in part.
- The patent concerns treating Type II diabetes with combination therapy of repaglinide (an insulin secretagogue) and metformin (an insulin sensitizer).
- Prior art showed synergies with other metformin combinations; repaglinide/metformin combination data included the Moses Study (HbA1c and FPG improvements) and a Sturis rat study suggesting synergy.
- Novo filed a provisional patent in 1997; the examiner initially rejected as obvious; Novo argued synergy based on the Moses Study and Sturis Declaration; patent issued in 2004 with Claim 4 unchanged.
- Caraco filed an ANDA in 2005 and asserted obviousness and inequitable conduct; the district court found claim 4 obvious and the patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct; on appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- The opinion discusses burden-shifting in obviousness, the predictability of synergy, the Kappos v. Hyatt question on consideration of new evidence, and the post-Therasense standards for materiality and intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the burden of persuasion correctly allocated in the obviousness analysis? | Novo argues the court shifted the burden to the patentee after a prima facie showing. | Caraco contends proper burden-shifting allowed considering countervailing evidence of unexpected results. | No reversible error; burden allocation was proper. |
| Did Caraco prove that the repaglinide/metformin results were expected in view of the prior art? | Novo argues the combination yielded unexpected synergy not anticipated by prior art. | Caraco argued prior art, especially metformin with sulfonylureas, supports expected synergy. | The court affirmed that the district court correctly found the results were expected in light of the prior art. |
| Should the examiner’s prior findings on synergy have been given deference under Kappos v. Hyatt? | Novo argues the PTO findings should be given deference as in PTO review cases. | Caraco argues deference is inappropriate in this Hatch-Waxman context or that new evidence can alter findings. | Hyatt is inapplicable; no deference owed to PTO findings in this district court patent case. |
| Did the district court err in finding inequitable conduct by Sturis and Bork? | Novo contends the Sturis Declaration omissions and Bork’s statements were not material or intentional. | Caraco argued materiality and intent under pre- and post-Therasense standards. | The court reversed the inequitable conduct findings as to Sturis and Bork (materiality/intent not upheld). |
Key Cases Cited
- Pfizer v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (burden of proving invalidity remains with challenger; burden does not shift to patentee)
- In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (reaffirmed proper burden-shifting approach in obviousness; cannot rely solely on prima facie evidence)
- Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (post-Therasense standard for materiality and intent in inequitable conduct)
- KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2007) (Gives a practical, flexible approach to obviousness; supports real-world considerations)
- In re Kao,, 639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (illustrates scope and sufficiency of evidence for nonobviousness across embodiments)
- In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865 (CCPA 1978) (closest prior art; nonobviousness depends on novelty over the closest reference)
- In re Lain, 747 F.2d 703 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (considers property of a compound in nonobviousness analysis)
- Eisai Co. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (unpredictability in chemical arts affects obviousness assessment)
- Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (inventor’s path not determinative of obviousness; person of ordinary skill standard)
