Home » Patent Law Updates » New Judicial Opinions » Current Summary
Patent Law Summary
Federal Circuit Sustains Sanofi-Aventis in Denying Novo's Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Novo Nordisk A/S v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, et al.
No. 2008-1225, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 07/30/2008
Companies Mentioned: Novo Nordisk A S, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC
Holding
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in this appeal a district court's denial of Novo Nordisk A/S's application for a preliminary injunction against Sanofi-Aventis in their patent dispute relating to a insulin injection product. The U.S. District Court earlier denied the preliminary injunction because patentee Novo Nordisk failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. Specifically, the district court reasoned that Sanofi raised substantial questions regarding whether the specification read as a whole suggests that the very character of the invention requires direct gearing and a non-rotatable piston rod to be part of every embodiment. On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that In light of this apparent conflict between the specification and the claims, the district court appropriately exercised its discretion in concluding that Novo has not established a likelihood of success on the merits. At the preliminary injunction stage, it was irrelevant whether this case presents greater issues of claim construction or validity - the existence of one or both of these issues was sufficient to justify the district court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction. In the light of the foregoing, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Novo's motion for preliminary injunction.
Detailed Summary
Plaintiff-appellant Novo Nordisk A/S (“Novo”) sued defendants-appellees Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi-Aventis, and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (collectively “Sanofi”), alleging that Sanofi’s SoloStar product infringes one or more claims of Novo’s ’278 patent. Opinion, p.1. Novo then filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin Sanofi “from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing SoloStar in the United States. The district court denied Novo’s request for a preliminary injunction. Id., pp. 1-2, citing Novo Nordisk A/S v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, 3:07-CV-3206, slip op. (D.N.J. Feb. 19, 2008) (“Injunction Order”). Novo thus appealed.
In this case, the district court denied the preliminary injunction because the patentee failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. Id., p.2, citing Injunction Order at 38. The district court concluded, “Novo has not shown that Sanofi’s asserted defense that SoloStar does not infringe the ’278 patent because it lacks direct gearing and a non-rotatable piston rod, lacks substantial merit.” Id. citing id. The district court reasoned that Sanofi “raised substantial questions regarding whether the specification read as a whole suggests that the very character of the invention requires direct gearing and a non-rotatable piston rod to be part of every embodiment.” Id., pp. 2-3, citing id. at 35.
On appeal, Novo argued that the district court erred in interpreting the claims to require a gearbox and non-rotating piston rod. Novo asserted that the district court’s claim construction was legal error because the claim language was clear, the specification contained no disclaimer, the prosecution history made clear that Novo abandoned these requirements, and the doctrine of claim differentiation supported Novo’s proposed construction. Id., p. 3. On the other hand, Sanofi asserted that the district court correctly construed the claims.
In resolving this appeal, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Sanofi, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Specifically, the district court found that a question exists regarding whether “the very character of the invention requires direct gearing and a non-rotatable piston rod,” Id. p. 4, citing Injunction Order at 35, “a finding which, at this stage of the proceedings and on this record, we do not view to be clearly erroneous. Although Novo argues that the claims do not explicitly include the terms ‘gearbox’ or ‘non-rotatable piston rod,’ Sanofi notes that the specification is directed to an invention that appears to center on the ‘gearbox’ and ‘non-rotatable piston rod’ components. In light of this apparent conflict between the specification and the claims, the district court appropriately exercised its discretion in concluding that Novo has not established a likelihood of success on the merits.” Id.
At the preliminary injunction stage, it is irrelevant whether this case presents greater issues of claim construction or validity - the existence of one or both of these issues is sufficient to justify the district court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction. Id. pp. 4-5, citing Saunders Group, Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d 1326, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2007). While it is true that many of the substantial questions identified by the district court would ultimately be analyzed in the context of construing the claims, some might more appropriately be analyzed in the context of validity (i.e., written description and enablement). Id., p. 4, citing Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Res., Inc., 279 F.3d 1357, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
In the light of the foregoing, the Federal Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Novo’s motion for preliminary injunction.
View a PDF of the judicial opinion.Service
Link to this article · 
Send via E-mail · 
Printable Version (opens in new window)
