Case: 20-1749 Document: 74 Page: 1 Filed: 08/16/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL
GMBH,
Appellant
v.
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
Appellee
ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE
FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF
THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
OFFICE,
Intervenor
______________________
2020-1749, 2020-1751, 2020-1752
______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018-
01424, IPR2018-01426, IPR2018-01427.
______________________
Decided: August 16, 2021
______________________
Case: 20-1749 Document: 74 Page: 2 Filed: 08/16/2021
2 TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
WILLIAM M. JAY, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington,
DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by ELAINE
BLAIS, EDWINA CLARKE, ALEXANDRA LU, Boston, MA;
NATASHA ELISE DAUGHTREY, Los Angeles, CA; WILLIAM
MILLIKEN, DEBORAH STERLING, Sterne Kessler Goldstein &
Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC.
WILLIAM BARRETT RAICH, Finnegan, Henderson,
Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, ar-
gued for appellee. Also represented by CHARLES COLLINS-
CHASE, PIER DEROO, ERIN SOMMERS, YIEYIE YANG; SANJAY
M. JIVRAJ, MARK STEWART, Eli Lilly and Company, Indian-
apolis, IN.
MONICA BARNES LATEEF, Office of the Solicitor, United
States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for
intervenor. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE,
FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, MEREDITH HOPE
SCHOENFELD.
______________________
Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH (“Teva”)
appeals from a combined final written decision of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal
Board (“Board”) holding that the claims of U.S. Patents
9,346,881 (“’881 patent”), 9,890,211 (“’211 patent”), and
8,597,649 (“’649 patent”) are unpatentable because they
would have been obvious over the cited prior art. Eli Lilly
and Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals International
GmbH, Nos. IPR2018-014242, IPR2018-014264, IPR2018-
01427, 2020 WL 808240 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2020) (“Board
Decision”). For the following reasons, and for the reasons
set forth in our opinion in Appeal Nos. 2020-1747, 2020-
1748, and 2020-1750 issued this day, we affirm.
Case: 20-1749 Document: 74 Page: 3 Filed: 08/16/2021
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 3
This appeal pertains to three inter partes reviews
(“IPR”). Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) filed petitions chal-
lenging claims in ’881, ’211, and ’649 patents directed to
humanized antagonist antibodies that target calcitonin
gene-related peptide (“CGRP”). On February 18, 2020, the
Board issued a combined final written decision holding the
challenged claims in all three patents unpatentable. On
the same day, the Board issued a combined final written
decision in three other IPRs between the same parties,
holding unpatentable the claims in three related patents,
all directed to humanized antagonist antibodies that target
CGRP. See Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Pharmaceuti-
cals International GmbH, Nos. IPR2018-01422, IPR2018-
01423, IPR2018-01425, 2020 WL 806932 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18,
2020).
Teva filed six appeals from the Board’s two combined
final written decisions. We consolidated the six appeals
into two sets of three, in line with the Board’s two combined
final written decisions. In the two consolidated appeals,
the parties made substantively identical arguments,
mostly copied and pasted verbatim from one case to the
other. Teva included the following footnote in its opening
brief:
In a second decision issued the same day, the Board
also held unpatentable the challenged claims of
three related composition patents. That decision,
which is materially identical in reasoning, is
the subject of Teva’s companion appeal no. 20-1747.
Teva’s arguments in the two appeals are the
same. . . .
Teva Opening Br. at 13 n.6. A corresponding footnote ap-
pears in Teva’s opening brief in Appeal No. 2020-1747.
Lilly did not dispute that the parties’ arguments in the two
appeals are the same. During the combined oral argument
in the two consolidated appeals, neither party argued that
Case: 20-1749 Document: 74 Page: 4 Filed: 08/16/2021
4 TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
any one of the six appeals should be decided differently
from the others.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our opinion in
Appeal Nos. 2020-1747, 2020-1748, and 2020-1750 issued
this day, we affirm the Board’s combined final written de-
cision holding unpatentable the challenged claims in the
’881, ’211, and ’649 patents.
AFFIRMED