Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • I
  • In re Metoprolol Succinate Patent LitigationIn re Metoprolol Succinate Patent Litigation
From our private database of 16,600+ case briefs...

In re Metoprolol Succinate Patent Litigation

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
494 F.3d 1011 (2007)


AstraZeneca AB, Aktiebolaget, Hassle, and AstraZeneca LP (collectively “Astra”) (plaintiffs) manufactured and marketed metoprolol succinate in “extended release” forms under the brand name Toprol-XL. Toprol-XL was used to treat angina, hypertension, and congestive heart failure. In 1971, an Astra inventor named Toivo Nitenberg in Sweden synthesized metoprolol succinate. In 1982, another Astra employee in Sweden named Lars Lilljequist also synthesized metoprolol succinate, possibly at the direction of two other Astra employees, Appelgren and Eskilsson. In 1983, Appelgren and Eskilsson left Astra to join Lejus Medical AB (“Lejus”). In January 1984, Lejus filed a patent application (‘197) for metoprolol succinate with the Swedish Patent Office, naming Appelgren and Eskilsson as inventors. Thereafter, Lejus filed a U.S. patent application for metoprolol succinate claiming priority from the Swedish patent application. After noticing Lejus’ U.S. patent application, Astra commenced a transfer of ownership action with the Swedish Patent Office asserting that Nitenberg was the inventor of metoprolol succinate. In the resulting settlement agreement between Astra and Lejus, the two companies agreed to divide claims to “metoprolol succinate” and to assign the divided claims to Astra. Appelgren and Eskilsson were listed as inventors of metoprolol succinate and Astra agreed that Lejus retained the rights to the ‘197 application that did not include the divided claims. In March 1988, Astra filed a U.S. patent application (‘897) which was a continuation, in part, of the Lejus ‘197 application. In January 1992, the Astra ‘897 application resulted in the issuance of the ‘154 patent with the only claim being “metoprolol succinate.” At the same time, Lejus was issued the ‘318 patent, resulting from the ‘197 application. Thereafter, Astra filed multiple suits for infringement in various district courts against three companies seeking to market generic versions of Toprol-XL. The actions were then consolidated into multidistrict patent infringement litigation. The three defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the district court, holding that Astra’s ‘154 patent was invalid for double patenting. Astra appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Gajarsa, J.)

Dissent (Schall, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 435,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,600 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial