Opinion ID: 210398
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of Products

Text: We do not agree with the scope of the district court's injunction that includes products other than escitalopram oxalate. Although the standard of review for the issuance and scope of an injunction is abuse of discretion, whether the terms of the injunction fulfill the mandates of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Signtech USA, Ltd. v. Vutek, Inc., 174 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed.Cir.1999). In International Rectifier, we held that the only acts [an] injunction may prohibit are infringement of the patent by the adjudicated [products] and infringement by [products] not more than colorably different from the adjudicated [products]. 383 F.3d at 1316. In order to comply with Rule 65(d), the injunction should explicitly proscribe only those specific acts. Here, the '712 patent covers a range of products beyond those described in the ANDA. The statute, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B), provides that injunctive relief may be granted against an infringer to prevent the commercial manufacture, use, offer to sell, or sale within the United States or importation into the United States of an approved drug. Thus, while the injunction may properly extend to the approved drug, it should not extend to the remainder of the products covered by the patent. The injunction is therefore modified to delete the language any products that infringe the '712 patent, including.