Warner-Lambert Company v. Apotex Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
316 F.3d 1348, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1481 (2003)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Warner-Lambert Company (plaintiff) held a patent (the neurodegenerative-method patent) for a method of treating neurodegenerative diseases using compounds such as gabapentin. Warner-Lambert marketed gabapentin to treat epilepsy after receiving an approved New Drug Application from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Warner-Lambert also held an epilepsy-method patent claiming the use of gabapentin to treat epilepsy. The FDA did not approve any other uses for gabapentin, including any uses claimed under the neurodegenerative-method patent. Apotex Corporation filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA, seeking approval to market a generic form of gabapentin for the use of treating partial seizures upon the expiration of the epilepsy-method patent. Apotex submitted a Paragraph IV certification stating that its proposal would not infringe on the neurodegenerative-method patent. The certification stated that the proposed use for partial seizures was approved under the epilepsy-method patent, the neurodegenerative-method patent did not claim the treatment of partial seizures, and Apotex’s generic gabapentin product would not fall within the bounds of the neurodegenerative-method patent. Warner-Lambert filed a patent-infringement suit against Apotex in federal court, asserting that Apotex’s ANDA submission was infringement. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. Warner-Lambert appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lourie, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.