UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. ALLERGAN, INC. and SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE, Plaintiffs/Appellants,

Similar documents
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ERIN SANBORN-ADLER, * v. * * No LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF * NORTH AMERICA, et al.

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff Appellant,

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ANDREW AUERNHEIMER,

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

No , , Consolidated with Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Case: Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/

No U IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Docket No In The United States Court of Appeals For The First Circuit. Appellee, DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, Defendant Appellant.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to Rule 6.1 of the Local Rules of

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC, Appellant. UNIFIED PATENTS INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

**ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 8, 2017** IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT KAWA ORTHODONTICS, LLP, Plaintiff-Appellant,

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA **********

CA NOS , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In the Fourteenth Court of Appeals Houston, Texas

Paper No Entered: May 3, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Case No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. TIMOTHY WHITE, ROBERT L. BETTINGER, and MARGARET SCHOENINGER,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT HELD APRIL 12, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Jose Vera,

No. A- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Applicant-Petitioner,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:18-cv LY Document 16 Filed 05/31/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS BID PROTEST ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. SANDRA CLARK and RHONDA KNOOP,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Case No CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, et al.,

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CONTINENTAL SERVICE GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee. PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., Consolidated-Plaintiff-Appellant

Case 4:11-cv Document 143 Filed in TXSD on 06/25/13 Page 1 of 5

General Docket US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

No In the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. CHARLOTTE CUNO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED Nos , , , ,

Case 1:08-cv GWM Document 116 Filed 07/28/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Defendants-Appellees.

No In The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, EDWARD A. SHAY, et al., Petitioners, NEWMAN HOWARD, et al., Respondents.

Eric C. Rowe. Counsel. Experience M Street, NW Suite 450N Washington, DC Phone: Fax:

No Abigail Noel Fisher, University of Texas at Austin, et al.,

Court of Appeals of Virginia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 99-CV (GK)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. No

Case 1:10-cr RJL Document 11 Filed 05/02/13 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed on behalf of Petitioner Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC

A (800) (800)

Case: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/ RALPH WHITLEY, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2:09-cv AJT-MKM Doc # 233 Filed 08/30/13 Pg 1 of 11 Pg ID 10277

Supreme Court of Virginia

OF FLORIDA. An Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jeri B. Cohen, Judge.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION ) ) ) No. 3:12-CV-519

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

VIFX LLC By Richard G. Vento I v. Director Virgin Islands Bureau

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES (1976)

Case Document 87 Filed in TXSB on 03/10/15 Page 1 of 7

United States Court of Appeals

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No

Green Machine Corp v. Zurich Amer Ins Grp

Case: Document: 56 Page: 1 11/13/ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

General Docket US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Second Circuit Court of Appeals

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY Telephone:

Supreme Court of the United States


Case 4:11-cv KGB Document 186 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Case 4:11-cv ALM Document 372 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 7909

Docket

No. 05- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. CAROLYN BURLISON; JAMES EADY; JERRY FLOYD; ROBERT GUNTER; and STEPHEN REINSCH,

Case 1:17-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ^ I

Case 2:11-cv BSJ Document 405 Filed 01/29/15 Page 1 of 9

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, AFL-CIO, CLC PENSION ASSISTANCE AND LITIGATION POLICY ADOPTED 2011

No Eugene Evan Baker, Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendants-Appellees.

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********

In the Supreme Court of the United States

STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT. Decision and Order on V.R.A.P. 4 Motion for Extension of Time

Case Nos (L), , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NO CQ DANNY KELLY, Appellant VERSUS. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee CIVIL ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv CW

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CHICAGO MILWAUKEE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, THE UNITED STATES,

Follow this and additional works at:

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 936 Filed: 08/11/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:14311 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case KRH Doc 3230 Filed 08/05/16 Entered 08/05/16 18:08:16 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION ) ) ) No. 3:12-CV-519

Case: Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 02/01/ (Serial No. 12/426,034) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION [NUMBER] ) APPELLANT S MOTION TO Plaintiff and Respondent,

Transcription:

Case: 18-1130 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 01/16/2018 18-1130 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ALLERGAN, INC. and SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., AKORN, INC., MYLAN PHARMAECUTICALS INC., and MYLAN, INC., Defendants/Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS IN CASE NO. 2:15-CV-1455, JUDGE WILLIAM BRYSON UNOPPOSED MOTION OF PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF ALLERGAN, INC. AND THE SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE AND REVERSAL Counsel for Amicus Curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

Case: 18-1130 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 01/16/2018 CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST Counsel for Amicus Curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America certifies the following: 1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America 2. The name of the real party in interest (please only include any real party in interest NOT identified in Question 3) represented by me is: None 3. Parent corporations and publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more of the stock in the party: PhRMA has no parent corporation and no publicly traded company owns 10% or more of its stock. However, its membership includes companies that have issued stock or debt securities to the public. A list of PhRMA s members is available at: www.phrma.org/about/members. 4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court (and who have not or will not enter an appearance in this case) are : None 5. The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in this or in any other court or agency that will directly affect or be directly affected by this court s decision in the pending appeal. See Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(5) and 47.5(b). (The parties should attach continuation pages as necessary): The patents-in-suit are also the subject of pending IPR proceedings, captioned Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, IPR2016-01127, IPR2016-01128, IPR2016-01131, IPR2016-01132. There is an additional case involving the same patents pending in the Eastern District of Texas, captioned Allergan, Inc. v. Deva Holding A.S., No. 2:16-cv-1447- WCB. i

Case: 18-1130 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 01/16/2018 Dated: January 16, 2018 By: /s/ Aaron Stiefel Aaron Stiefel ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 W. 55th Street New York, NY 10019 (212) 836-8000 ii

Case: 18-1130 Document: 45 Page: 4 Filed: 01/16/2018 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America ( PhRMA ) moves this Court for leave to file an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs/appellants and reversal of the decision below. PhRMA represents the country s leading researchbased pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. 1 PhRMA s members are devoted to discovering and developing innovative medicines, treatments, and vaccines that save, prolong, and improve the quality of the lives of countless individuals worldwide. PhRMA works to protect its members investments in research and development by supporting public policies that promote innovation in the biopharmaceutical industry, including a robust system of patent protection. To that end, PhRMA frequently participates as an amicus in cases, such as this one, that involve significant issues impacting patent rights. PhRMA s proposed amicus brief, submitted herewith, addresses the issue of whether the district court, in deciding that the patents-in-suit were invalid as obvious, was correct in dismissing the significance of its own finding that Allergan, Inc. s Restasis product was a commercial success and satisfied a long- 1 A complete list of PhRMA members is available at http://www.phrma.org/about/members. Members include Allergan plc and Teva US Specialty Medicines. Plaintiff-appellant Allergan, Inc. is an indirect subsidiary of the former; defendant-appellee Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. is a corporate affiliate of the latter.

Case: 18-1130 Document: 45 Page: 5 Filed: 01/16/2018 felt need. The district court attributed the product s success to earlier blocking patents. The district court s approach effectively eliminates commercial success and long-felt need as objective indicia available as evidence of the nonobviousness of improvement patents. That, in turn, will weaken patent rights protecting pharmaceuticals and diminish the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest in research and development, particularly that directed to improving existing products. In reviewing the district court s decision it will be useful for the Court to have the benefit of the perspective of the industry responsible for innovative pharmaceutical development which will be affected by this Court s ruling. Based on the foregoing PhRMA asks that the Court grant it leave to file its amicus curiae brief. Plaintiffs/appellants Allergan, Inc. and The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe have consented to PhRMA s filing of its amicus curiae brief. Defendants/appellees Teva Pharmaceutical USA, Inc., Akorn, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan, Inc. take no position on PhRMA filing its amicus curiae brief. 2

Case: 18-1130 Document: 45 Page: 6 Filed: 01/16/2018 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Aaron Stiefel Aaron Stiefel ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 W. 55th Street New York, NY 10019 (212) 836-8000 DAVID E. KORN PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA 950 F Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 835-3400 3

Case: 18-1130 Document: 45 Page: 7 Filed: 01/16/2018 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE following: Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 27 and 32, I certify the The motion complies with the type-volume limitations of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(d)(2)(A). This motion contains 412 words, excluding the parts of the motion exempt by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Federal Circuit Rule 27(d). /s/ Aaron Stiefel Aaron Stiefel ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 W. 55th Street New York, NY 10019 (212) 836-8000

Case: 18-1130 Document: 45 Page: 8 Filed: 01/16/2018 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Aaron Stiefel, hereby certify that, on January 16, 2018, the foregoing document was filed and served on all counsel of record via email through the Court s CM/ECF system. /s/ Aaron Stiefel Aaron Stiefel ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 W. 55th Street New York, NY 10019 (212) 836-8000