GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
- Oct 2 2020 |
- Category: CAFC Updates
GlaxoSmithKline and SmithKline Beecham (collectively, “GSK”) charged Teva Pharmaceuticals with infringement of GSK’s Reissue Patent No. RE40,000 (“the ’000 patent”) directed to carvedilol and related compounds. Trial was held in the District Court; the jury found the patent valid and infringed, and assessed damages. The jury also found that the infringement was willful. The district court then granted Teva’s motion for judgment of non-infringement as a matter of law, concluding that a reasonable factfinder could only have found that alternative, non-Teva factors were what caused the doctors to prescribe generic carvedilol for an infringing use. The CAFC finds that district court applied an incorrect legal standard, because precedent makes clear that when the provider of an identical product knows of and markets the same product for intended direct infringing activity, the criteria of induced infringement are met. The CAFC finds that there was ample record evidence of promotional materials, press releases, product catalogs, the FDA labels, and testimony of witnesses from both sides, to support the jury verdict of inducement to infringe the ’000 reissue patent. Accordingly, the CAFC reverses the grant of JMOL, reinstates the jury verdicts of infringement and damages, and remands to the district court for appropriate further proceedings. Chief Judge Prost dissents, arguing that the district court got it right because no evidence established that Teva actually caused the doctors’ infringement.