Opinion ID: 809904
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: e., a 150 mg to 300 mg monthly dose. Id. at 5–6.

Text: In addition to those references, the district court considered extensive expert testimony, including concessions by Roche’s technical expert. According to the district court, Roche’s expert made five key concessions: (1) that 7 HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE v. APOTEX the Lunar News article provided a motivation to investigate monthly dosing with bisphosphonates such as ibandronate; (2) that in the 2000–02 timeframe the art was trending away from daily dosing and toward longer interval dosing; (3) that, by the critical date, a skilled artisan would have reason to investigate treatment with monthly ibandronate; (4) that once one chooses a particular treatment agent and a particular dosing time interval, determining a dose within the broad therapeutic range is a relatively routine matter; and (5) that, by May 2002, one skilled in the art would have expected that a once- monthly dose of 150 mg of ibandronate would have had some effectiveness. Id. at –7. Finally, the district court rejected Roche’s evidence of teaching away and secondary considerations. The court found that while the prior art showed there were uncertainties in the field, “the field as a whole appeared to be moving toward osteoporosis treatment regimens involving intermittent dosing,” and one-month periods between dosing were “well-known.” Id. at . Regarding Roche’s evidence of secondary considerations, the court found that Roche “had not detailed its position on secondary considerations in briefing” its motion for a preliminary injunction and had not “substantively pointed out such evidence.” Id. The court also specifically considered and rejected Roche’s evidence of commercial success. Id. at  n.6. In considering all the evidence presented, the district court found that Roche failed to prove a likelihood that it would successfully defend against the Defendants’ obviousness challenge. Roche timely appealed from the decision, and while its appeal was pending, the district court concluded on summary judgment that claims 1–8 of the ’634 patent would have been obvious to those of skill in the art, relying on the prior art submitted during the HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE v. APOTEX 8 motion for preliminary injunction as well as three additional references. See Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Apotex Inc., No. 2:07-CV-04417, 2012 WL 1637736 (D.N.J. May 7, 2012). No judgment has yet been entered on that decision, and any such judgment will be subject to appeal. We thus express no opinion on the summary judgment proceedings in the context of this appeal. We have jurisdiction over Roche’s appeal of the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) and (c)(1).