Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[othersideofthemirror]

Links to 14-1634 Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Roxane (which is cited to in 17-1601 ZUP, LLC v. Nash Manufacturing, Inc.)

Before DYK, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
DYK, Circuit Judge.

pdf
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1634.Opinion.11-5-2015.1.PDF

OA
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?title=&field_case_number_value=14-1634&field_date_value2%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=

select quotes

Finally, the district court carefully considered secondary considerations of nonobviousness as required by our
precedent, In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride ExtendedRelease Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1079 (Fed.
Cir. 2012), and found that the secondary considerations
PROMETHEUS LABORATORIES, INC. v. ROXANE LABORATORIES,
INC. 15 did not support a conclusion of nonobviousness.

However, “once a challenger has
presented a prima facie case of invalidity, the patentee
has the burden of going forward with rebuttal evidence.
But, all that means is that even though a patentee never
must submit evidence to support a conclusion by a judge
or jury that a patent remains valid, once a challenger
introduces evidence that might lead to a conclusion of
invalidity—what we call a prima facie case—the patentee
would be well advised to introduce evidence sufficient to
rebut that of the challenger.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
480 F.3d 1348, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quotation marks
and citations omitted).
We do not find that the district court improperly
shifted the burden of proof as to commercial success.
Although the district court described and rejected Prometheus’ attempts to “prove commercial success of Lotronex
and that [Lotronex] fulfilled a long-felt but unmet need,”
J.A. 41, we understand those statements to be in reference to Prometheus’ burden of production. We have found
that similar imperfect language is not grounds for reversal. Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469
F.3d 978, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation
marks omitted) (affirming the district court’s holding of
invalidity despite the court’s statement that “[t]here is no
indication that the [motivation to combine] was nonobvious,” because the district court’s opinion as a whole
indicated it “correctly allocated the burden of proof”). The
district court opinion clearly states the correct standard in
finding the claims of the ’770 obvious by clear and convincing evidence. J.A. 44.