Judge Paul Gardephe
In a precedential April 2012 opinion the Federal Circuit affirmed district court’s grant to Watson and Sandoz Inc. judgment on the pleadings in Bayer’s 2008 patent infringement suit over their generic version of Bayer’s Yasmin-brand oral contraceptive. In August 2012 district court denied Watson and Sandoz attorney fees under 35 USC §285. The underlying infringement case was not “exceptional.” Watson’s June 2012 state action alleged Bayer’s baseless infringement suit filed to trigger an automatic 30-month statutory stay of FDA approval of Watson’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA). Bayer removed suit to district court. District court denied remand. Citing Achtman v. Kirby, McInerney & Squire and Alderman v. Pan Am World Airways, it found Watson’s claims closely related to the underlying federal infringement case, such that the patent dispute and Watson’s state law claims “substantially overlapped” and district court held supplemental jurisdiction over Watson’s state law claims. Refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction would result in the issues’ relitigation in state court, before a judge unfamiliar with the parties’ patent litigation and likely entirely unfamiliar with the ANDA process.
