Court Declines Review of Finality Issue
The CAFC first considered the validity of Baxter International’s U.S. Patent 5,247,434 (the ‘434 patent) on appeal from a patent infringement litigation with Fresenius. In that first 2009 appeal (now commonly referred to as Fresenius I), the Court upheld the patent over certain prior art. After Fresenius I, the litigation dispute went back to the district court on a damages related remand.
Meanwhile, in May 2012 a patent reexamination proceeding initiated by Fresenius in 2007 made its way to the CAFC. The reexamination was based on much the same prior art as previously considered in Fresenius I. This time, the CAFC affirmed the determination of the PTAB (then BPAI) that the claims were obvious over the applied prior art applying the more liberal standards for USPTO challenges
. En banc
review was then sought, but declined by the CAFC
. A petition of certiorari
on the seemingly conflicting results was also pursued, but denied by the Supreme Court.
Thereafter, Fresenius II made it’s way to the CAFC
to determine whether the outstanding damage award of the district court was enforceable in light of the CAFC’s decision in In re Baxter (2012)
. The CAFC held that since the damage award was not yet final, it was essentially voided by the cancellation of the patent in reexamination. Once again, en banc
review was sought, and denied by the CAFC, last summer. A second petition for certiorari
was then pursued for Fresenius II. This most recent petition was denied today, finally ending the dispute.
Given the high court's lack of interest in Fresenius I, which more squarely presented the issue of seemingly conflicting final results, it is not at all surprising