Case Name: BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-20
Citations: 769 F.3d 1339
Docket Number: No. 2013-1306
Parties: BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, PLAGER ,LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 769
Pages: 1339–1359

Head Matter:
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 2013-1306.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Oct. 20, 2014.
William F. Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, of Boston, MA, filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the petition were Lauren B. Fletcher and Andrew J. Danford, of Boston, MA, and Amy K. Wigmore and Thomas G. Saunders, of Washington, DC. Of counsel on the petition were Paul H. Berg-hoff, Alison J. Baldwin, and Joshua Rich, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, of Chicago, IL.
George C. Lombardi, Winston & Strawn LLP, of Chicago, IL, filed a response for defendant-appellee. With him on the response were Lynn MacDonald Ulrich, Ivan M. Poullaos, Julia Mano Johnson, and William P. Ferranti.
Jonathan E. Singer, Fish & Richardson P.C., of Minneapolis, MN, for amicus curiae Biotechnology Industry Organization. With him on the brief was Craig E. Countryman, of San Diego, CA.
Howard W. Levine, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Bay Area Bioscience Association. With him on the brief was Jennifer S. Swan, of Palo Alto, CA.
Roy F. Waldron, Pfizer Inc., of New York, NY, for amicus curiae Pfizer Inc. With him on the brief were Jeffrey J. Oelke, Leslie Morioka, and Robert E. Counihan, White & Case LLP, of New York, NY.
Steven P. Caltrider, Eli Lilly and Company, of Indianapolis, IN, for amicus curiae Eli Lilly and Company.
Carter G. Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. With him on the brief were Jeffrey P. Kushan, Ryan C. Morris, and James A. High, Jr.
Robert M. Isackson, Orriek, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, of New York, NY, for amicus curiae Intellectual Property Owners Association. With him on the brief were Elizabeth A. Howard and T. Vann Pearce. Of counsel on the brief were Philip S. Johnson and Kevin H. Rhodes, Intellectual Property Owners Association, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was Herbert C. Wamsley, Jr.
Nicholas G. Barzoukas, Baker Botts L.L.P., of Houston, TX, for amicus curiae Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. With him on the brief was Joshua Davis. Of counsel on the brief were William Krovatin and Gerard M. Devlin, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., of Rahway, NJ.
Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, PLAGER ,LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
. Circuit Judge Plager participated only in the decision on the petition for panel rehearing.

Opinion:
ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by plaintiff-appellant Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by defendant-appellee Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. The petition for rehearing and response were referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter, the petition for rehearing en banc and response were referred to the circuit judges who are authorized to request a poll of whether to rehear the appeal en banc. A poll was requested, taken, and failed.
Upon consideration thereof,
It Is ORDERED That:
(1) The petition for panel rehearing is denied.
(2) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
(3) The mandate of the court will issue on October 27, 2014.
DYK, Circuit Judge, with whom WALLACH, Circuit Judge, joins, concurs in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
O'MALLEY, Circuit Judge, concurs in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, with whom LOURIE and REYNA, Circuit Judges, join, dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
TARANTO, Circuit Judge, with whom LOURIE and REYNA, Circuit Judges, join, dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
DYK, Circuit Judge, with whom WALLACH, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
This case presents a question of obviousness, in particular whether evidence post dating the invention can be used to establish unexpected results. The panel holds that it cannot be considered in the circumstances of this case. That position is correct. It is mandated by the statute, which provides that an invention is not patentable if it "would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains." 35 U.S.C. § 103 (emphasis added).
The patent applicant's discovery of unexpected results at the time of the invention can help to establish that the invention would not have been obvious to another skilled person. But hindsight bias must be avoided in determining obviousness. And under longstanding Supreme Court authority, the pertinent knowledge is that possessed at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 167 L.Ed.2d 705 (2007) (focusing on "[w]hen Adams designed his battery" and noting that "[tjhe fact that the elements worked together in an unexpected and fruitful manner supported the conclusion that Adams' design was not obvious to those skilled in the art.") (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 86 S.Ct. 708, 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966)); Ball & Socket Fastener Co. v. Kraetzer, 150 U.S. 111, 116-17, 14 S.Ct. 48, 37 L.Ed. 1019 (1893) (discounting an advantage of a patented invention that "was not originally within the contemplation of the pat-entee, but is an afterthought"); see also Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2011) (Dyk, J., dissenting). This decision properly does not allow consideration of post-invention evidence in the circumstances of this case. There is no basis for rehearing en banc.