BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY v. SIGMAPHARM LABORATORIES , No. 20-2229 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-2229 Document: 80 Page: 1 Filed: 09/03/2021 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, PFIZER INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. SIGMAPHARM LABORATORIES, LLC, SUNSHINE LAKE PHARMA CO. LTD., HEC PHARM USA INC., UNICHEM LABORATORIES, LTD., Defendants-Appellants ______________________ 2020-2229, 2020-2252, 2020-2258 ______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in Nos. 1:17-cv-00374-LPS, 1:17-cv00380-LPS, 1:17-cv-00382-LPS, 1:17-cv-00408-LPS, Judge Leonard P. Stark. ______________________ Decided: September 3, 2021 ______________________ WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by TIMOTHY ANDREW COOK, ANDREW J. DANFORD, KATHERINE P. KIECKHAFER, MADELEINE C. LAUPHEIMER, KEVIN SCOTT PRUSSIA; HEATHER M. PETRUZZI, AMY K. WIGMORE, Washington, DC. Case: 20-2229 Document: 80 2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/03/2021 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY v. SIGMAPHARM LABORATORIES PAUL HILGER KOCHANSKI, Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP, Cranford, NJ, argued for defendants-appellants Sunshine Lake Pharma Co. Ltd., HEC Pharm USA Inc. Also represented by KENDALL K. GURULE, WILLIAM L. MENTLIK, TEDD W. VAN BUSKIRK. PETER BRANKO PEJIC, Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C., Reston, VA, argued for defendant-appellant Unichem Laboratories, Ltd. Also represented by PAUL BRAIER, JILL BROWNING. DONALD J. MIZERK, Husch Blackwell LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for defendant-appellant Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC. Also represented by PHILIP D. SEGREST, JR., MARC RICHARD WEZOWSKI; THOMAS P. HENEGHAN, Madison, WI; DUSTIN TAYLOR, Denver, CO. ______________________ Before MOORE, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges. O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. Having reviewed the district court’s thorough and thoughtful opinion, we affirm. We specifically adopt its construction of the following terms from U.S. Patent No. 6,967,208 (“the ’208 patent”): (1) “substituted with [N] R,” see Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc., 477 F. Supp. 3d 306, 340 (D. Del. 2020), and (2) “pharmaceutically acceptable salts,” see id. at 312 ¶ 13. And, we adopt its construction of the following terms from U.S. Patent No. 9,326,945 (“the ’945 patent”): (1) “apixaban particles have a D90 equal to or less than about 89 microns,” see id. at 313 ¶ 19, and (2) “crystalline apixaban particles,” see id. We also find no error, and certainly no clear error, in the district court’s findings of fact, including its expert witness credibility determinations. Because we believe the district court’s patent infringement and invalidity Case: 20-2229 Document: 80 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY SIGMAPHARM LABORATORIES Page: 3 v. Filed: 09/03/2021 3 determinations flow directly from its claim construction and factual findings, we affirm. AFFIRMED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
