Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MNTA)

[mouton29]

Federal Circuit reverses district court in TEVA litigation:

https://ecf.cafc.uscourts.gov/docs1/0131602387

The opinion starts:

MOORE, Circuit Judge.
This case comes to us on remand from the Supreme
Court, which vacated our earlier opinion reversing the
district court’s judgment that certain claims were not
indefinite (Group I claims), and affirming the district
court’s holdings that other claims (Group II claims) were
valid and infringed.2 Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz,
Inc., 723 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013), vacated, Teva Pharm.
USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015). Relevant
to the Group I claims, the Supreme Court held that the
ultimate construction of a claim term is a question of law,
subject to de novo review, and that underlying subsidiary
fact findings are subject to clear error review. Teva, 135
S. Ct. at 837–38, 841–42. During that same time, the
Supreme Court issued its opinion in Nautilus, Inc. v.
Biosig Instruments, Inc. (Nautilus II), 134 S. Ct. 2120
(2014), addressing the standard for indefiniteness. On
remand, the parties submitted supplemental briefing
explaining how the appeal should be resolved in light of
the Supreme Court’s Teva decision. See Teva Pharm.
USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 12-1567 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20,
2015), ECF No. 137. Applying the legal standards set
forth in the Supreme Court’s Teva and Nautilus II decisions,
we hold that the Group I claims are invalid for
indefiniteness.3