Senju Pharmaceutical Co. v. Apotex Inc.
891 F. Supp. 2d 656
D. Del.2012Background
- Senju and Kyorin co-own the '045 patent; Allergan is the exclusive ophthalmic licensee.
- This action concerns infringement allegations based on the same ANDA filed in the first litigation.
- Plaintiffs claim infringement of newly added/amended reexamined claims 6 and 12-16.
- Reexamination occurred before final judgment in the first litigation and added claims 12-16 and amended claim 6.
- Defendants move to dismiss under the claim preclusion doctrine, arguing this suit is barred by the prior final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim preclusion bars the current suit | Plaintiffs contend new reexamined claims are not barred | Defendants argue reexamined claims are barred as a same-action under preclusion | Yes; claim preclusion applies to the reexamined claims |
| Whether the accused product is the same for purposes of preclusion | Product remains essentially the same as in the first litigation | Product is the same based on public record and ANDA | Yes; product is essentially the same for preclusion |
| Whether reexamination creates a new cause of action | Reexamined claims are new and could create new action | Reexamination does not yield a new patent or broader claims | No; reexamination does not create a new action |
| What law governs the claim-preclusion analysis in patent cases | Regional law governs preclusion, with federal law on unique reexamined claims | Federal Circuit law governs the element of same-claim in patent context | Federal Circuit law governs the issue of same cause of action; regional law guides general preclusion doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335 (Fed.Cir.2012) (reexamination does not create a new patent or new cause of action; claims narrowed but not broader)
- Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 525 F.3d 1319 (Fed.Cir.2008) (patent-law-specific analysis for same cause of action in infringement cases)
- Hallco Mfg. Co. v. Foster, 256 F.3d 1290 (Fed.Cir.2001) (engineering the 'same claims' inquiry in patent preclusion)
- Kearns v. Gen. Motors Corp., 94 F.3d 1553 (Fed.Cir.1996) (independent legal claims per patent grant for preclusion analysis)
- Abbey v. Mercedes Benz of N. Am., Inc., 138 F. App’x 304 (Fed.Cir.2005) (treatment of patent-related preclusion in appeals)
- Churchill v. Star Enters., 183 F.3d 184 (3d Cir.1999) (framework for claim preclusion in the Third Circuit)
- EEOC v. U.S. Steel Corp., 921 F.2d 489 (3d Cir.1990) (duty to conserve judicial resources; preclusion as a policy aim)
- Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education, 465 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1984) (distinction between issue and claim preclusion)