GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM (CORK) LIMITED, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant, 7 F.4th 1320

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-The district court erred by granting judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement of a patent because substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict of induced infringement under 35 U.S.C.S. § 271(b) by the manufacturer of a generic drug. The jury had sufficient circumstantial evidence, in the form of labels, marketing materials, catalogs, press releases, and expert testimony, for it to conclude that the manufacturer succeeded in influencing doctors to prescribe the generic drug for an infringing use; [2]-The jury instruction on lost profit damages under 35 U.S.C.S. § 284 was not erroneous because other generic producers' version of the drug was not a non-infringing alternative. If another generic producer had made the manufacturer's sales for the infringing use, those uses also would have been infringing.