SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN GMBH , No. 21-1262 (Fed. Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-1262 Document: 64 Page: 1 Filed: 12/29/2021 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, SANOFI WINTHROP INDUSTRIE, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. MYLAN GMBH, BIOCON LTD., BIOCON RESEARCH LTD., BIOCON SDN.BHD, BIOCON S.A., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2021-1262 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in No. 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW, Judge Stanley R. Chesler. ______________________ SUA SPONTE ______________________ Before DYK, CLEVENGER, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Case: 21-1262 Document: 64 2 Page: 2 Filed: 12/29/2021 SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC v. MYLAN GMBH Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie (collectively, “Sanofi”) filed a patent infringement suit against Mylan GmbH, Biocon Ltd., Biocon Research Ltd., Biocon Sdn.Bhd., and Biocon S.A. (collectively, “Mylan”) in the District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting Mylan infringed claims 21, 22, 25, and 30 of Sanofi’s U.S. Patent No. 9,526,844 (“the ’844 Patent”). The district court found no infringement of the asserted claims and that the asserted claims are invalid for lack of written description. Sanofi appeals. We affirmed today in a related appeal, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, et al. v. Mylan GmbH, et al., No. 2020-2068, the final written decision by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2018-01680 holding that claims 21–30 of the ’844 Patent would have been unpatentable as anticipated and/or obvious. Accordingly, Sanofi’s appeal from the district court’s ruling is moot. IT IS ORDERED THAT: Sanofi’s appeal in Appeal No. 2021-1262 is dismissed as moot. FOR THE COURT December 29, 2021 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

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.