Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD., AUROBINDO
PHARMA USA, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
USA, INC.,
Defendants
MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LTD., MSN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants
______________________
2024-1401
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in Nos. 1:20-cv-00985-GBW, 1:20-cv-
01029-GBW, Judge Gregory Brian Williams.
______________________
Decided: June 9, 2025
______________________
CHAD P ETERMAN, Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY,
for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by P ETER E.
CONWAY , SCOTT F REDERICK P EACHMAN, BRUCE M. WEXLER ;
F ELIX EYZAGUIRRE , Houston, TX.
Case: 24-1401 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. 2
CHAD A. L ANDMON, Polsinelli PC, Washington, DC, for
defendants-appellants. Also represented by CHRISTOPHER
J ONES ; T HOMAS K. HEDEMANN, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider
LLP, Hartford, CT.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, L OURIE and B RYSON, Circuit
Judges.
MOORE, Chief Judge.
MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. and MSN Pharmaceu-
ticals, Inc. (collectively, MSN) appeal an order from the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
granting summary judgment of no invalidity because it
held claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,566,271 cannot be an ob-
viousness-type double patenting (ODP) reference for claim
26 of U.S. Patent No. 7,601,740. Both parties agree this
case is entirely controlled by our recent decision in Allergan
USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., 111 F.4th
1358 (Fed. Cir. 2024), which issued after briefing in this
case was completed. Citation of Suppl. Authority at 1–2
(Feb. 24, 2025), ECF No. 27 (MSN 28(j) Ltr.); Resp. to Ci-
tation of Suppl. Authority at 1 (Mar. 3, 2025), ECF No. 28.
MSN recognizes its only recourse is en banc action. MSN
28(j) Ltr. at 1. We apply Allergan’s holding that “a first-
filed, first-issued, later-expiring claim cannot be invali-
dated by a later-filed, later-issued, earlier-expiring refer-
ence claim having a common priority date,” 111 F.4th at
1369, and conclude claim 5 of the ’271 patent is not a proper
ODP reference that can be used to invalidate claim 26 of
the ’740 patent.1
AFFIRMED
1 We do not reach the district court’s alternative
ground for rejecting ODP—that the safe harbor provision
of 35 U.S.C. § 121 protects the ’740 patent against the ’271
patent. J.A. 6–12; MSN Br. 20–38; Acadia Br. 30–64.
Case: 24-1401 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2025

-- 2 of 2 --