« Patent Debris | Main | Terminal Disclaimer »
December 12, 2011
Stabilising Coat
The
corrupt plutocratic governance in this country saves its
skin from mass revolt by long-con shading: maintaining the
appearance of playing it jake, while keeping the dice loaded for the
money players when it matters. The courts in patent cases
do this through nuanced rulings, with the assistance of double-speak
case law. When a dumb judge steps over the line of indiscretion, it is
checked by slicker fixers from above. Case in point: New
Jersey Judge William ("Little Willie") Martini, who likes his martini
dry, but made a ruling that was all wet.
Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International v. Mylan (CAFC 2011-1611) nonprecedential (translation: "don't quote us on this business-as-usual correction") Judge Rader (CAFC slick fixer #1), Dyk, and O'Malley (author)
This is a Hatch-Waxman Act case. Mylan wanted to launch a generic of Warner Chilcott/Mayne's patented drug (6,958,161, which goes to a "stabilising coat" on the pill). Warner Chilcott sued for patent infringement, and got a preliminary injunction from Little Willie.
The preliminary injunction hearing was a flimsy excuse for a fix already in.
The district court heard arguments from counsel regarding both motions on September 21, 2011. The court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing and did not hear live testimony from any of the witnesses. The hearing lasted just over an hour.
The day after the hearing, the district court issued a two-page order granting Warner Chilcott's motion and preliminarily enjoining Mylan from selling [a generic version].
On appeal:
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that: (1) "he is likely to succeed on the merits"; (2) "he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief"; (3) "the balance of equities tips in his favor"; and (4) "an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). Such an injunction is "an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." Id. (citation omitted). Where, as here, an accused infringer has challenged the validity of a patent in response to a motion for a preliminary injunction, this court has addressed the procedures district courts are to use to analyze the question of validity. See, e.g., Titan Tires Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc., 566 F.3d 1372, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As it relates to the present appeal, we have explained that "the trial court first must weigh the evidence both for and against validity that is available at this preliminary stage in the proceedings." Id. at 1379.
In this case, the district court abused its discretion in two ways. The court: (1) failed to hold an evidentiary hearing despite acknowledging that the decision turned on disputed factual issues; and (2) did not weigh the evidence or make any findings as to Mylan's invalidity challenge. [T]hese errors warrant vacating the preliminary injunction.
Vacated and remanded.
Posted by Patent Hawk at December 12, 2011 1:28 PM | Case Law