Takeda loses battle to stop Mylan from selling generic gout drug

735
SHARE

“The district court put forth an interpretation whereby a holding of non-infringement, invalidity, or unenforceability on only a subset of the patents asserted—without a decision one way or the other with respect to the remaining patents—triggers Section 1.2(d).”

Takeda argues that “the district court erred in concluding that Section 1.2(d) was likely triggered by [a prior] decision” because “not all the claims that were asserted in that case were held to be not infringed or a combination of not infringed, invalid, or unenforceable by a Final Court Decision.”

In its argument, the Tokyo-based pharmaceutical company also stated that Section 1.10 of the License Agreement stipulated that it would be irreparably harmed if Mylan breached Section 1.2.

Takeda failed to show it could suffer irreparable harm

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Takeda’s arguments and affirmed the district court’s decision.

In a 2-1 ruling on July 31, the Appeals Court said it agrees with the district court that “Takeda has not shown that it would be irreparably harmed absent a preliminary injunction.” It also agrees that Takeda failed to show that it is “likely to succeed on the merits or that it would be irreparably harmed absent a preliminary injunction.”