Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.

Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

March 18, 2014, Decided

2012-1340, 2012-1341

Opinion

 [*1183]   [***1010]  Lourie, Circuit Judge.

Alcon Research Ltd. ("Alcon") appeals from the final judgments of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware finding that Barr Laboratories, Inc. ("Barr") does not infringe claim 12 of Alcon's U.S. Patent 5,631,287 (the "'287 patent") and claim 19 of Alcon's U.S. Patent 6,011,062 (the "'062 patent") and holding those claims invalid for lack of enablement and lack of an adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.1 Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 837 F. Supp. 2d 364 (D. Del. 2011).  [**2] Barr cross-appeals from the district court's denial of Barr's post-judgment motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to amend the district court's judgment and enter judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") of noninfringement as to Alcon's U.S. Patents 5,510,383 (the "'383 patent") and 5,889,052 (the "'052 patent"). Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs. Inc., No. 09-0318, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35889, 2012 WL 928189 (D. Del. Mar. 16, 2012).

We conclude that the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that Barr's product would not infringe the asserted claims of the '287 and '062 patents and that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barr's motion to amend for JMOL of noninfringement of the '383 and '052 patents. However, we conclude that the district court's invalidity  [**3] determinations as to the asserted claims of the '287 and '062 patents were not in accordance  [*1184]  with law. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

Background

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

745 F.3d 1180 *; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5023 **; 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1008 ***; 88 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 27; 2014 WL 1013076

ALCON RESEARCH LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARR LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant.

Prior History:  [**1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 09-CV-0318, Judge Legrome D. Davis.

Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35889 (D. Del., Mar. 16, 2012)Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 837 F. Supp. 2d 364, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143007 (D. Del., 2011)

Disposition: AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART.

CORE TERMS

patent, prostaglandin, stability, infringement, district court, invention, composition, chemical, written description, travoprost, disclosures, skilled, invalid, experimentation, enhancing, asserted claim, concentrations, noninfringement, generic, buffer, formulations, litigated, amend, clear and convincing evidence, no evidence, preservatives, specification, variables, disclose, inventor

Patent Law, Jurisdiction & Review, Standards of Review, Clearly Erroneous Review, Business & Corporate Compliance, Governments, Agriculture & Food, Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, Statutory Bars, Experimental Use Exception, Elements, Infringement Actions, Defenses, Experimental Use & Testing, Burdens of Proof, Specifications, Enablement Requirement, General Overview, Description Requirement, Standards & Tests, Patent Invalidity, Presumption of Validity, De Novo Review, Proof of Enablement, Governments, Courts, Judicial Precedent, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Abuse of Discretion, Judgments, Relief From Judgments, Altering & Amending Judgments, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Claims & Specifications, Declaratory Judgments, Federal Declaratory Judgments, Counterclaims