Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—00179—SLFl Document 141 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
Ric;-·u¤.r=n::>s.=, LAYTON & F‘n~aes;r=r
A PROFESSIONAL ASEOCZEATEON
Out: Hoosier Saunas
920 NORTH KING 5`l“F?£-ZE'? DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
ANNH $****2** GMA Wntmmorom, Dr=;n.AwAm·; lemon 50555 *7539
COUNSEL team es n-·z woo eAzA@nu=» een
mx raoai est-won
WWW .RLF .COM
July 26, 2007
VIA ECF
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
United States District Judge
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Bayer AG, ct al. v. Br. Rcddfs Laboratories, Ltd., et al.,
N0. 04-·0I79 (D. Del.)
Dear Judge Robinson: ,
We write on behalf of`Plaintiffs Bayer AG, Bayer HealthCare AG, and Bayer
Pharmaceuticals Corporation (collectively "Bayer") in response to the Reddy Det“endants’ July
24, 2007 letter regarding the decision in In re Mefoprolol Succirmte Parent Litigation, No. 2006-
1254 (lied. Cir. luly 23, 2007). Di. 140.
Despite the suggestion in Reddy’s letter, Mctoprolol does not support Reddy’s
theory that there exists a third kind of double patenting—which Reddy refers to as "Sclmeller—
type" double patenting—that applies whenever "the invention ofthe second patent is fully
disclosed in, and fully covered bythe claims otQ an earlier patent? DJ. 140 at l.
To the contrary, Metoprolol supports the position set forth in Bayer’s post-trial
brief that there are only two kinds of double patenting: (I) statutory double patenting under 35
USC. 101, and (2) the _j udicially created doctrine of non—statutory double patenting (sometimes
referred to as "obviousness—type" doublepatenting). See slip op. at 12~l3; see also Di. 133 at
82~8· district court’s ruling on "o`bvious—type double patenting," where the pertinent inquiry is whether
a later claim is "patentably ciistinct" from an earlier claim. Slip op. at 7-8. In that discussion,
Meloprolol re—afiir1ned that °‘[a] later claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim
if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier clai1n." Slip op. at 8 (quoting Eli
Lilly & C0. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); see also D.l. l33 at 74-75.
nerr-sis24c¤r·1

Case 1:04-cv—00179—SLR Document 141 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
July 26, 2007
Page 2
We thamlc the Court for its consideration of this mattert
Respectfully,
CRW JM gm
Anne Shea Gaze (#4093)
ec: Counsel of Record
RLF1·3182
Case 1:04-cv-00179-SLR

Document 141

Filed 07/26/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00179-SLR

Document 141

Filed 07/26/2007

Page 2 of 2