Patent is not invalid for obviousness-type double patenting
Eli Lilly and Company, et al. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 08-335-GMS, July 28, 2011.
Sleet, C. J. Post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law.
This is a consolidated patent infringement action concerning a generic version of ALIMTA®, which is covered by U.S. Patent No. 5,344,932. Defendants contend that the ‘932 Patent is invalid under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting in view of commonly-owned U.S. Patent Nos. 5,028,608 and 5,248,775. A bench trial was held November 8 - 15, 2010. Plaintiff prevailed at trial and its findings of fact and conclusions of law were largely adopted. “[T]he examples found in the ‘775 patent specification do not support a finding of invalidity for obviousness-type double patenting because this case does not present a situation in which separate patents are sought for a claim to a compound and a claim to using that compound for the disclosed utility of the original compound.” Further, the evidence presented at trial does as to the certain prior art referenced do not lead to the conclusion that the claimed compound would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
