`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`BIOGEN MA INC.,
`Appellee
`______________________
`
`2020-1673
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-
`01403.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: November 30, 2021
`______________________
`
`NATHAN K. KELLEY, Perkins Coie, LLP, Washington,
`DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by SHANNON
`BLOODWORTH, BRANDON MICHAEL WHITE; DAVID LEE
`ANSTAETT, ANDREW DUFRESNE, EMILY JANE GREB, Madi-
`son, WI; DAN L. BAGATELL, Hanover, NH; COURTNEY
`PROCHNOW, Los Angeles, CA; MATTHEW GREINERT, Mylan,
`Canonsburg, PA.
`
` WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
`Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for appellee. Also
`
`
`
`Case: 20-1673 Document: 60 Page: 2 Filed: 11/30/2021
`
`2
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. BIOGEN MA INC.
`
`represented by ANNALEIGH E. CURTIS, MADELEINE C.
`LAUPHEIMER, LISA JON PIROZZOLO; SCOTT G. GREENE, New
`York, NY; THOMAS SAUNDERS, Washington, DC; PAUL
`WILLIAM BROWNING, PIER DEROO, MARK J. FELDSTEIN,
`CORA RENAE HOLT, BARBARA CLARKE MCCURDY, JAMES B.
`MONROE, ERIN SOMMERS, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC.
`______________________
`
`Before O’MALLEY, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
`REYNA, Circuit Judge.
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., appeals the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board’s Final Written Decision of an inter
`partes review proceeding, in which Mylan challenged
`claims 1–20 of Biogen MA, Inc.’s United States Patent
`8,399,514 (the ’514 Patent). See Mylan Pharms. Inc. v.
`Biogen MA Inc.¸ No. IPR2018-01403, 2020 WL 582736,
`at *1–2 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2020). The ’514 Patent claims a
`method for the treatment of multiple sclerosis with a drug
`called dimethyl fumarate, a fumaric-acid ester compound,
`at a specific dose of 480 milligrams per day. ’514 Patent
`col. 27 ll. 59–67. The Board found that Mylan failed to
`demonstrate by preponderant evidence that the challenged
`claims were unpatentable as obvious over a combination of
`prior-art references. Mylan Pharms.¸ 2020 WL 582736,
`at *1–2. The Board further determined that Biogen pre-
`sented sufficient evidence of unexpected results to over-
`come Mylan’s obviousness challenge. Id. at *16–19,
`*23–24.
`On appeal, Mylan argues that the Board based its pa-
`tentability determination on an erroneous analysis of sec-
`ondary considerations of nonobviousness. Appellant’s
`Br. 17. Mylan further contends that the Board violated the
`Administrative Procedure Act by issuing a determination
`limited only to unexpected results, while ignoring the par-
`ties’ dispute over the other three objective indicia of
`
`
`
`Case: 20-1673 Document: 60 Page: 3 Filed: 11/30/2021
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. BIOGEN MA INC.
`
`3
`
`nonobviousness. Id. at 18. Biogen counters that the Board
`did not err in upholding the patentability of the challenged
`claims because Biogen presented strong evidence of unex-
`pected results, and there is no requirement that the Board
`consider all objective indicia before it makes a nonobvious-
`ness determination. Appellee’s Br. 32–33, 47–48.
`In Biogen, the companion case to this appeal, we held
`that the ’514 Patent is invalid for lack of written descrip-
`tion under 35 U.S.C. § 112, see Biogen Int’l GmbH v. Mylan
`Pharms. Inc., No. 20-1933, __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`Consequently, we need not reach the merits of the parties’
`arguments in this case. The holding of lack of written de-
`scription in Biogen is dispositive of the Board’s patentabil-
`ity determination. We have considered the parties’
`remaining arguments and find no reason to hold otherwise.
`AFFIRMED
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
