Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc et al. v. Perrigo Company et al.

Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc et al. v. Perrigo Company et al.

Fed. Cir. (2010)

Fitzpatrick obtains a favorable ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Mucinex® patent litigation

In litigation involving a patent covering Reckitt Benckiser’s very successful and popular over-the-counter drug product Mucinex®, Fitzpatrick obtained a favorable ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in construing the claim terms, and as a result vacated the court’s judgment of non-infringement on summary judgment. Notably, as to infringement, the Federal Circuit made clear that, as long as the commercial embodiment meets all the claim limitations, there is no blanket prohibition against comparing the accused product to a commercial embodiment to prove infringement. The Federal Circuit also ruled that notwithstanding that a patent claim said “at least 3500,” the doctrine of equivalents still applies to such a claim even though it was not disputed that the accused product was below that value. The Court stated none of its case law supported such a bar of the doctrine and reiterated that the proper inquiry is whether the accused value is insubstantially different from the claimed value.

The Fitzpatrick team was led by partners Dominick Conde and John Carlin. Nina Shreve and Tara Byrne also worked on the matter.