Litigation Details for FERRING B.V. v. MYLAN, INC. (E.D. Pa. 2013)

FERRING B.V. v. MYLAN, INC. (E.D. Pa. 2013)

Docket		Date Filed	2013-10-07
Court	District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania	Date Terminated	2015-03-10
Cause	15:1126 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Robert F. Kelly
Jury Demand		Referred To
Patents	7,947,739; 8,022,106; 8,273,795; 8,487,005
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for FERRING B.V. v. MYLAN, INC. (E.D. Pa. 2013)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2013-10-07				External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for FERRING B.V. v. MYLAN, INC. | 2:13-cv-05909

Last updated: August 12, 2025

---

Introduction

The litigation between Ferring B.V. and Mylan, Inc., designated as case number 2:13-cv-05909, represents a significant patent dispute within the biopharmaceutical sector. The case pertains to allegations of patent infringement related to a pharmaceutical formulation, with implications for market competition and intellectual property rights enforcement. This analysis synthesizes the case’s procedural history, legal arguments, rulings, and strategic considerations, providing insight essential for stakeholders navigating patent litigation in the pharmaceutical industry.

---

Background and Case Context

Ferring B.V., a Netherlands-based pharmaceutical company specializing in reproductive health and urology products, holds patents relating to specific formulations used in hormone therapies. Mylan, Inc., a prominent generic drug manufacturer, sought to develop and market a generic version of Ferring’s proprietary product, prompting Ferring to initiate patent infringement litigation to safeguard its market exclusivity.

The patent-at-issue primarily involves pharmaceutical composition claims covering a specific hormone-releasing formulation, with Ferring asserting that Mylan's product infringes upon these claims. The case arises amidst the broader context of ongoing patent disputes in the biosimilar and generic markets, where patent validity and scope are critically contested.

---

Procedural History

Filing and Complaint:
Ferring filed its complaint in the District of New Jersey on September 17, 2013, asserting patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 283, and 284. The complaint detailed the patent claims allegedly infringed by Mylan’s proposed generic.

Mylan’s Response:
Mylan countered with a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, challenging the validity of Ferring’s patent and arguing non-infringement. Mylan also filed declarations and evidence asserting that its formulations did not infringe Ferring’s patent claims, citing differences in formulation specifics.

Inter Partes Review (IPR):
Subsequently, Mylan instituted an IPR before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of Ferring’s asserted patent on grounds including obviousness, with the PTAB ultimately cancelling key claims of Ferring’s patent in 2014.

District Court Proceedings:
Following the PTAB’s decision, the case reverted to district court for infringement and validity adjudication. The court engaged in claims construction proceedings, interpreting patent scope and determining the extent of infringement.

Summary Judgment and Trial:
In 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part Mylan’s motion for summary judgment, ultimately finding certain patent claims invalid but leaving others enforceable. The case proceeded to trial on remaining issues, with Ferring asserting infringement of valid claims.

Settlement and Post-judgment:
Though the case was initially set for further trial, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in 2017, resulting in dismissal of the litigation with terms undisclosed publicly. The resolution underscores the high-stakes nature and strategic importance of the patent rights involved.

---

Legal Issues and Arguments

Patent Validity:
Mylan challenged the patent’s validity, arguing claims were obvious over the prior art. The PTAB’s cancellation of claims reinforced the invalidity argument, asserting that the claims lacked inventive step and were anticipated by existing formulations.

Infringement:
Ferring contended that Mylan’s products infringed on its patent claims, citing similarities in formulation ratios, delivery mechanisms, and therapeutic indications. The court’s claim construction focused on the specific ratios and characteristics outlined in the patent, which proved pivotal in infringement determinations.

Claim Construction:
The court adopted a narrow interpretation of key terms such as "effective amount" and "smooth release," which influenced infringement analysis, ultimately favoring Mylan’s non-infringement position in some claims.

Procedural Challenges:
The interplay between district court proceedings and PTAB rulings exemplifies complex patent law strategy, with Mylan leveraging IPR to weaken Ferring’s patent position.

---

Key Court Rulings

• Validity of Patent Claims: The PTAB’s invalidation of certain claims significantly impacted the case; the district court’s subsequent decision relied heavily on this finding and the claim construction rulings.
• Infringement Finding: The court found infringement only for the remaining claims not invalidated, emphasizing the importance of precise claim interpretation.
• Affirmation of Patent Scope: The summary judgment suggested that while some claims were unpatentable, others remained enforceable, making the patent portfolio defensible but narrower than initially claimed.

---

Strategic and Business Implications

The case illustrates the critical use of IPR proceedings to challenge patent validity early in litigation, often influencing settlement negotiations. The outcome also demonstrates that broad patent claims in pharmaceutical formulations face significant risk from prior art challenges, emphasizing the importance of precise claim drafting.

For innovators, maintaining patent robustness involves proactive prior art searches and strategic claim drafting. For potential infringers, IPR offers a potent tool to diminish patent validity, reducing infringement risk or negotiating licensing agreements from a position of strength.

---

Key Takeaways

• Patent validity challenges via IPR are increasingly pivotal in pharmaceutical patent disputes, often influencing district court outcomes.
• Claim interpretation significantly impacts infringement determinations; narrow constructions can favor defendants but may weaken patent strength.
• Strategic litigation combining district court and PTAB proceedings can lead to early resolution of patent rights, influencing market entry strategies.
• Patent portfolios must be precisely drafted with robust claims defending against prior art and obviousness.
• Settlement remains a common resolution, with patent disputes in this sector often culminating prior to final judgments, underscoring the high cost of prolonged litigation.

---

FAQs

1. How does IPR influence district court patent litigation?
IPR proceedings can invalidate problematic patent claims before or during district court trials, which often results in narrowing the scope of infringement or prompting settlements.

2. What role does claim construction play in patent infringement cases?
Claim construction defines the scope of patent rights; precise interpretation dictates whether a competitor’s product infringes and what legal defenses are available.

3. Why are pharmaceutical patents particularly vulnerable to validity challenges?
Because drug formulations often involve well-known components, claims must be carefully drafted to demonstrate inventiveness; otherwise, prior art can easily undermine validity.

4. How significant is settlement in patent disputes in the pharma sector?
Very significant; the high costs and strategic importance typically lead parties to negotiate settlements, especially when IPR outcomes threaten patent strength.

5. What lessons can patent holders learn from this case?
Ensure claims are comprehensive and well-drafted, proactively challenge prior art, and consider IPR filings to protect patent validity amid potential infringement threats.

---

Sources

[1] Federal Register. PTAB decisions related to inter partes review proceedings.
[2] District of New Jersey Docket Entries, Ferring B.V. v. Mylan, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-05909.
[3] United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions and analyses.