Case: 20-2229 Document: 80 Page: 1 Filed: 09/03/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, PFIZER
INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
v.
SIGMAPHARM LABORATORIES, LLC, SUNSHINE
LAKE PHARMA CO. LTD., HEC PHARM USA INC.,
UNICHEM LABORATORIES, LTD.,
Defendants-Appellants
______________________
2020-2229, 2020-2252, 2020-2258
______________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in Nos. 1:17-cv-00374-LPS, 1:17-cv-
00380-LPS, 1:17-cv-00382-LPS, 1:17-cv-00408-LPS, Judge
Leonard P. Stark.
______________________
Decided: September 3, 2021
______________________
WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for plaintiffs-appellees.
Also represented by TIMOTHY ANDREW COOK, ANDREW J.
DANFORD, KATHERINE P. KIECKHAFER, MADELEINE C.
LAUPHEIMER, KEVIN SCOTT PRUSSIA; HEATHER M.
PETRUZZI, AMY K. WIGMORE, Washington, DC.
Case: 20-2229 Document: 80 Page: 2 Filed: 09/03/2021
2 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY v.
SIGMAPHARM LABORATORIES
PAUL HILGER KOCHANSKI, Lerner, David, Littenberg,
Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP, Cranford, NJ, argued for de-
fendants-appellants Sunshine Lake Pharma Co. Ltd., HEC
Pharm USA Inc. Also represented by KENDALL K. GURULE,
WILLIAM L. MENTLIK, TEDD W. VAN BUSKIRK.
PETER BRANKO PEJIC, Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.,
Reston, VA, argued for defendant-appellant Unichem La-
boratories, Ltd. Also represented by PAUL BRAIER, JILL
BROWNING.
DONALD J. MIZERK, Husch Blackwell LLP, Chicago, IL,
argued for defendant-appellant Sigmapharm Laboratories,
LLC. Also represented by PHILIP D. SEGREST, JR., MARC
RICHARD WEZOWSKI; THOMAS P. HENEGHAN, Madison, WI;
DUSTIN TAYLOR, Denver, CO.
______________________
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and O’MALLEY,
Circuit Judges.
O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
Having reviewed the district court’s thorough and
thoughtful opinion, we affirm. We specifically adopt its
construction of the following terms from
U.S. Patent No.
6,967,208 (“the ’208 patent”): (1) “substituted with [N] R,”
see Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA
Inc.,
477 F. Supp. 3d 306, 340 (D. Del. 2020), and (2) “phar-
maceutically acceptable salts,” see
id. at 312 ¶ 13. And, we
adopt its construction of the following terms from U.S. Pa-
tent No. 9,326,945 (“the ’945 patent”): (1) “apixaban parti-
cles have a D90 equal to or less than about 89 microns,” see
id. at 313 ¶ 19, and (2) “crystalline apixaban particles,” see
id. We also find no error, and certainly no clear error, in
the district court’s findings of fact, including its expert wit-
ness credibility determinations. Because we believe the
district court’s patent infringement and invalidity
Case: 20-2229 Document: 80 Page: 3 Filed: 09/03/2021
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY v. 3
SIGMAPHARM LABORATORIES
determinations flow directly from its claim construction
and factual findings, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
