C. Kyle Musgrove

Kyle has been lead litigation counsel on more than 50 matters. A select few of those are described below:

• In re: Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan Patent Litigation, 20-md-02930 (D. Del.): Kyle co-led multiple trials on different patents related to a client’s ANDA product. After the last trial the case was resolved amicably. The earliest trial, however, was part of a multiple defendant trial, and 2 patents were invalidated based on arguments advanced by Kyle and his team during the trial. Kyle opened on those prevailing issues and closed on all issues on behalf of all defendants. The brand product involved exceeded $1 billion annually in sales.
• Biogen Int’l GmbH v. Banner Life Sciences LLC, 18-02054 (D.Del.) aff’d 20-1373 (Fed. Cir.): Kyle represented a 505(b)(2) applicant seeking to market its product prior to the expiration of a Patent Term Extension. Kyle successfully briefed and argued a motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the legal effects of a PTE on a product that was covered by the claims prior to the extension of term but was not part of the FDA review of the brand product. Based on that legal argument, the District Court granted a motion on the pleadings of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit denied a motion for a preliminary injunction while the Federal Circuit considered the appeal, and the Federal Circuit also affirmed the finding of non-infringement. The brand product at issue had more than $1 billion annually in sales.
• Sebela Int’l Ltd. v. Prinston Pharmaceutical, Inc., 14-cv-07400 (D.N.J.), appeal dismissed, 18-1036 (Fed. Cir.): Kyle led the trial team on the portion of this case which found non-infringement of a patent directed to a particular crystalline form. Kyle also cross-examined an expert relating to invalidity regarding two other patents. Those patents were held invalid.
• Alza  Corp. v. Andrx  Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 05-642 (D. Del.), aff’d 2009-1350 (Fed. Cir.): Kyle led a trial team that found the sole remaining asserted patent both not infringed and invalid for lack of full scope enablement. The invalidity determination was affirmed on appeal. Kyle argued the appeal. The brand product at issue had more than $1 billion annually in sales.
• SmithKline Beecham v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, 02-03779 (D.N.J.): Kyle was second chair at this trial. The case settled after trial and after the trial court had invalidated the compound claim at issue from the bench and had reserved on whether the method claims were invalid.
• Geneva v. Glaxosmithkline PLC, 01-00391 (E.D. Va.), aff’d 02-1439 (Fed. Cir.): Kyle was a member of the trial team that invalidated several patents for obviousness type double patenting. The patents were held invalid from the bench at the end of trial. He was also involved with the briefing on the appeal that affirmed that finding. The brand product involved exceeded $1 billion annually in sales.