Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Pfizer Inc. v. Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC, Sunshine Lake Pharma Co. Ltd., Hec Pharm USA Inc.,…

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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. L EE , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for plaintiffs-appellees.
Also represented by T IMOTHY ANDREW COOK, ANDREW J.
D ANFORD, K ATHERINE P. K IECKHAFER , MADELEINE C.
L AUPHEIMER , K EVIN SCOTT P RUSSIA; HEATHER M.
P ETRUZZI, AMY K. WIGMORE, Washington, DC.
Case: 20-2229 Document: 80 Page: 1 Filed: 09/03/2021

-- 1 of 3 --

BRISTOL- MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY v.
SIGMAPHARM LABORATORIES
2
P AUL HILGER K OCHANSKI, 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 K ENDALL K. G URULE,
WILLIAM L. MENTLIK, T EDD W. VAN B USKIRK.
P ETER BRANKO P EJIC, Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.,
Reston, VA, argued for defendant-appellant Unichem La-
boratories, Ltd. Also represented by P AUL BRAIER , J ILL
BROWNING.
D ONALD J. MIZERK, Husch Blackwell LLP, Chicago, IL,
argued for defendant-appellant Sigmapharm Laboratories,
LLC. Also represented by P HILIP D. SEGREST , J R., MARC
RICHARD WEZOWSKI; T HOMAS P. HENEGHAN, Madison, WI;
D USTIN T AYLOR, Denver, CO.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, N EWMAN 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 D 90 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: 2 Filed: 09/03/2021

-- 2 of 3 --

BRISTOL- MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY v.
SIGMAPHARM LABORATORIES
3
determinations flow directly from its claim construction
and factual findings, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 20-2229 Document: 80 Page: 3 Filed: 09/03/2021

-- 3 of 3 --