History
  • No items yet
midpage
Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
848 F.3d 981
| Fed. Cir. | 2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Shire sued Watson for patent infringement under U.S. Patent No. 6,773,720, alleging Watson’s ANDA sought approval to market a generic of Shire’s mesalamine product LIALDA® that infringed claims 1 and 3.
  • The ’720 patent claims a two-matrix controlled-release mesalamine composition: an inner lipophilic matrix (Markush group listed with “consisting of”) and an outer hydrophilic matrix (separately defined with “consists of”), plus optional excipients.
  • Prior Federal Circuit decisions construed the patent to require that each matrix itself exhibit the claimed spatial and compositional characteristics and that the Markush groups limit composition of each matrix.
  • At bench trial the district court found infringement, concluding magnesium stearate present in Watson’s outer (extragranular) matrix was irrelevant to the invention because hydrophilic excipients allegedly overwhelmed its effect.
  • The Federal Circuit reviewed whether the presence of a lipophilic excipient (magnesium stearate) in the outer hydrophilic matrix violates the claim 1(b) Markush “consisting of” limitation or falls within the Norian “unrelated to the invention” exception.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Shire) Defendant's Argument (Watson) Held
Whether Watson’s ANDA product meets claim 1(b)’s Markush "consisting of" limitation for the outer hydrophilic matrix Shire argued the claim-language is closed and magnesium stearate in examples does not expand the closed Markush; the claimed matrices must be hydrophilic/lipophilic as stated Watson argued its product functions as the claimed hydrophilic outer matrix despite containing magnesium stearate, which is present only as a lubricant and is "unrelated" to the invention Held: Watson does not satisfy claim 1(b); magnesium stearate in the outer matrix violates the closed "consisting of" Markush limitation
Whether the Norian unrelated-component exception applies to excipients present but not intended to serve the claimed matrix function Shire contended magnesium stearate is related to the invention because it retains lipophilic character and affects function Watson contended magnesium stearate is unrelated (a nonfunctional lubricant) and thus excluded under Norian Held: Norian exception does not apply; an excipient that structurally/ functionally relates to the invention cannot be ignored even if introduced for another purpose
Whether patent examples disclosing magnesium stearate can overcome the "consisting of" presumption Shire invoked examples to argue claims should be read to include magnesium stearate Watson relied on literal claim language to exclude unlisted components Held: Examples do not overcome the exceptionally strong presumption of a closed Markush created by "consisting of" language
Effect on dependent claim 3 given claim 1 noninfringement Shire argued dependent claim still infringed if 1 is met Watson argued noninfringement of claim 1 precludes claim 3 infringement Held: Because claim 1 is not infringed, dependent claim 3 also is not infringed

Key Cases Cited

  • Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson Pharm., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (construing matrices as spatially and compositionally distinct and interpreting Markush limits)
  • Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("consisting of" Markush claims create a strong closed-presumption)
  • Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (exception allowing unrelated, noninteractive components to be disregarded for infringement)
  • Ferring B.V. v. Watson Labs., Inc.-Florida, 764 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (one who does not infringe an independent claim cannot infringe a dependent claim)
  • CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (distinguishing "comprising" from "consisting of")
  • AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 239 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (discussing closed claim-element presumption created by "consisting of")
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Date Published: Feb 10, 2017
Citation: 848 F.3d 981
Docket Number: 2016-1785
Court Abbreviation: Fed. Cir.