Court Opinion

ID: 9386380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 15:01:07.273086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:06.011356
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-1924     Document: 65          Page: 1        Filed: 04/12/2023

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

  UCB, INC., UCB PHARMA GMBH, LTS LOHMANN
             THERAPIE-SYSTEME AG,
                Plaintiffs-Appellants

                                  v.

         ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.,
                 Defendant-Appellee
               ______________________

                         2021-1924
                   ______________________

     Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 District of Delaware in No. 1:19-cv-00474-KAJ, Circuit
 Judge Kent A. Jordan.

            ------------------------------------------------

  UCB, INC., UCB PHARMA GMBH, LTS LOHMANN
             THERAPIE-SYSTEME AG,
                Plaintiffs-Appellants

                                  v.

            MYLAN TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
                 Defendant-Appellee
               ______________________

                         2021-2336
                   ______________________
Case: 21-1924    Document: 65       Page: 2    Filed: 04/12/2023

 2                 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.

     Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 District of Delaware in No. 2:19-cv-00128-cr, Circuit Judge
 Kent A. Jordan.
                  ______________________

                  Decided: April 12, 2023
                  ______________________

     RICHARD L. RAINEY, Covington & Burling LLP, Wash-
 ington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also repre-
 sented by BRIAN GERARD BIELUCH, GEORGE FRANK PAPPAS;
 MICHAEL E. BOWLUS, ALEXA HANSEN, San Francisco, CA;
 JACK B. BLUMENFELD, DEREK J. FAHNESTOCK, ANTHONY D.
 RAUCCI, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilming-
 ton, DE; CATHERINE MCCORD, KEVIN MCGANN, SILVIA ME-
 DINA, JAMES TRAINOR, Fenwick & West LLP, New York,
 NY.

     JOHN C. O'QUINN, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington,
 DC, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendant-appel-
 lee Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. also represented by WIL-
 LIAM H. BURGESS, TERA JO STONE; THOMAS FLEMING,
 CHRISTOPHER T. JAGOE, New York, NY.

     DEEPRO MUKERJEE, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP,
 New York NY, for defendant-appellee Mylan Technologies
 Inc. Also represented by LANCE SODERSTROM; JITENDRA
 MALIK, Charlotte, NC; JILLIAN SCHURR, Chicago, IL; ERIC
 THOMAS WERLINGER, Washington, DC.
                 ______________________

     Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CHEN and STOLL, Circuit
                          Judges.
 STOLL, Circuit Judge.
     This appeal concerns the validity of U.S. Patent
 No. 10,130,589, directed to transdermal rotigotine patches
 and asserted by UCB, Inc., UCB Pharma GmbH, and LTH
Case: 21-1924       Document: 65     Page: 3    Filed: 04/12/2023

 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.                 3

 Lohman Therapie-Systeme AG (collectively, “UCB”) in
 Hatch-Waxman proceedings. UCB sued Actavis Laborato-
 ries UT, Inc. (“Actavis”) for infringement based on Actavis’s
 filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application. The United
 States District Court for the District of Delaware found the
 asserted claims of the ’589 patent invalid for anticipation
 and obviousness. Because the district court’s fact findings
 on overlapping ranges, teaching away, unexpected results,
 and commercial success are not clearly erroneous, we af-
 firm the judgment of invalidity.
                          BACKGROUND
                                 I
      The drug at issue in this pharmaceutical case is rotig-
 otine, which is used to treat Parkinson’s disease. Parkin-
 son’s disease is a neurodegenerative disorder that is
 presently estimated to affect more than a million Ameri-
 cans. Parkinson’s disease impacts motor control and
 causes significant gastrointestinal dysfunction, such as
 “difficulty swallowing, delayed gastric emptying, and slow
 transit times through intestines,” symptoms that can frus-
 trate oral treatments. J.A. 6488–89, ¶ 81.
     The technology at issue relates to transdermal thera-
 peutic systems (TTSs), which deliver drugs through the pa-
 tient’s skin and thus avoid complications with oral
 treatments. TTSs are usually implemented as skin
 patches that deliver drugs across the patient’s skin barrier
 to enter the patient’s bloodstream. These patches contain
 drugs in an “amorphous,” i.e., non-crystalline, form be-
 cause drugs in crystalline form cannot cross the skin bar-
 rier. Consequently, crystallization in patches can reduce
 the amount of drug leaving the patch and hence reduce a
 patient’s dose.
      Amorphous materials can transition from a non-crys-
 tallized (high energy) state to a crystallized (lower energy)
 state. “[T]he temperature at which an amorphous solid
Case: 21-1924     Document: 65       Page: 4    Filed: 04/12/2023

 4                  UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.

 changes from a rigid state to a flexible, rubbery state” is
 the glass transition temperature (Tg). UCB, Inc. v. Actavis
 Lab’ys UT, Inc., No. CV 19-474, 2021 WL 1880993, at *7,
 ¶ 44 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2021) (UCB II). Above Tg, molecules
 are more mobile and more likely to crystalize.
     In 2007, UCB invented and marketed Neupro® (which
 we refer to as original Neupro®), the first U.S. Food and
 Drug Administration approved patch for treatment of Par-
 kinson’s disease. Original Neupro® contains a dispersion
 of amorphous rotigotine and polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP).
 PVP stabilizes amorphous rotigotine by increasing the Tg
 and preventing hydrogen bonding between rotigotine mol-
 ecules, which prevents a clumping of sorts that creates
 crystallization. See id. at *7, ¶¶ 44, 46. Significant to this
 appeal, original Neupro® contains a weight ratio of rotigo-
 tine to PVP of 9:2. Id. at *8, ¶ 57.
      Original Neupro® is covered by several UCB patents,
 including U.S. Patent Nos. 6,884,434 and 7,413,747 (the
 Muller patents). The Muller patents have materially sim-
 ilar specifications and claim priority to an application filed
 in 1999. The ’434 Muller patent teaches a TTS having ro-
 tigotine in an amount effective for treating Parkinson’s dis-
 ease, with PVP in the range of 1.5% to 5% (w/w). See
 ’434 Muller patent, col. 7 ll. 55–67, col. 8 ll. 17–22, col. 8
 ll. 54–63 (claims 1, 5, 14–15). The ’747 Muller patent
 teaches a TTS with a ratio of 9% rotigotine to 1.5% to 5%
 PVP by weight. ’747 Muller patent, col. 8 l. 66–col. 10 l. 4
 (claim 14). The Muller patents also describe an exemplary
 process for making a TTS with a rotigotine to PVP weight
 ratio of 9:3 rotigotine to PVP. ’434 Muller patent, col. 5
 l. 54–col. 6 l. 14 (Example 2); ’747 Muller patent, col. 6
 ll. 16–44 (Example 2).
                                II
     In August 2007, some three months after the original
 Neupro® U.S. launch, it was discovered that a new crystal-
 line form of rotigotine—“Form II”—occurred when
Case: 21-1924       Document: 65     Page: 5    Filed: 04/12/2023

 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.                 5

 rotigotine was stored at room temperature. After discus-
 sions with the FDA, UCB recalled original Neupro® from
 U.S. markets in April 2008. Original Neupro® remained in
 limited use in the U.S. under a compassionate-use pro-
 gram, while European regulators agreed to continue mar-
 keting original Neupro® under cold-chain conditions (i.e.,
 refrigerating original Neupro®), which prevents Form II
 crystallization.
     In 2012, the FDA approved a new version of Neupro®
 (reformulated Neupro®), which employs a weight ratio of
 9:4 rotigotine to PVP. The reformulated Neupro® exhibits
 long-term stability at room temperature with a two-year
 shelf-life. Reformulated Neupro® is bioequivalent to the
 original Neupro®, and the FDA approved it without new ef-
 ficacy studies. The Muller patents are listed in the FDA’s
 publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic
 Equivalence Evaluations,” commonly known as the Orange
 Book, as covering reformulated Neupro®.
       In 2013, Actavis submitted an Abbreviated New Drug
 Application (ANDA) to the FDA for approval of a generic
 version of a transdermal rotigotine patch. In 2014, UCB
 filed suit for infringement of the ’434 Muller patent and
 U.S. Patent No. 8,232,414. See UCB, Inc. v. Watson Lab’ys,
 Inc., No. CV 14-1083, 2017 WL 11646645, at *1 (D. Del.
 Nov. 14, 2017), aff’d, 927 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (UCB
 I). 1 The district court upheld the validity of the challenged
 claims of the ’434 Muller patent, held some of the chal-
 lenged claims of the ’414 patent invalid under 35 U.S.C.
 § 102(a), and granted UCB an injunction preventing

     1
         Watson Laboratories, Inc. was the named defend-
 ant in the original suit, but Actavis (formally known as
 Watson) became the defendant. See UCB II, 2021 WL
 1880993, at *1 n.1.
Case: 21-1924     Document: 65       Page: 6    Filed: 04/12/2023

 6                  UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.

 approval of Actavis’s ANDA. The injunction expired in
 March 2021, when the ’434 Muller patent expired.
      In 2018—while UCB I was on appeal—UCB filed the
 patent application that matured into the patent-in-suit,
 the ’589 patent. The ’589 patent claims priority from a pro-
 visional application filed in December 2009. The patent is
 entitled “Polyvinylpyrrolidone for the Stabilization of a
 Solid Dispersion of the Non-Crystalline Form of Rotigo-
 tine” and discusses both rotigotine Form I and Form II. See
 ’589 patent, col. 1 ll. 47–54, col. 11 l. 66–col. 12 l. 2. The
 written description explains that “PVP is unexpectedly
 able to stabilize the non-crystalline form of rotigotine and
 prevent rotigotine from re-crystallization in a solid disper-
 sion . . . thereby imparting sufficient long term storage sta-
 bility properties to the [TTS], preferably at room
 temperature.” Id. at col. 3 ll. 28–35. The ’589 patent dis-
 closes and claims a TTS having a range of rotigotine to PVP
 ratios by weight of about 9:4 to about 9:6. Claim 1 is rep-
 resentative:
     1. A method for stabilizing rotigotine, the method
     comprising providing a solid dispersion comprising
     polyvinylpyrrolidone and a non-crystalline form of
     rotigotine free base, wherein the weight ratio of ro-
     tigotine free base to polyvinylpyrrolidone is in a
     range from about 9:4 to about 9:6.
 Id. at col. 15 ll. 54–59. The ’589 patent’s Table 3, shown
 below, displays results of storage stability testing of sam-
 ples of rotigotine to PVP ratios ranging from 9:1 to 9:11.
Case: 21-1924       Document: 65      Page: 7   Filed: 04/12/2023

 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.                 7

 Id. at Tbl. 3. The patent explains that no crystals were ob-
 served at room temperature for up to 24 months for sample
 5 with the PVP to rotigotine weight ratio of 9:4. Id.
 at col. 15 ll. 17–19.
     A comparison of the Muller patents, the ’589 patent,
 and original and reformulated Neupro® is depicted below.
 As shown, the ranges of rotigotine to PVP ratios disclosed
 in the Muller patents and the ’589 patent overlap from
 about 9:4 to 9:5 and include the ratio in reformulated
 Neupro®.

                                III
     In March 2019, about a year before UCB’s injunction
 expired, UCB again filed a lawsuit against Actavis, accus-
 ing Actavis’s same ANDA of infringement. This time, UCB
 asserted the ’589 patent, which would delay FDA approval
 of a generic for nine additional years, until the ’589 patent
Case: 21-1924    Document: 65        Page: 8    Filed: 04/12/2023

 8                  UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.

 expires in December 2030. UCB asserted that Actavis in-
 fringed claims 1–3, 7, and 10–12 of the ’589 patent. Actavis
 conceded that, if the ’589 patent is valid, then its ANDA
 would infringe.
     In July 2019, in response to Mylan Technologies, Inc.
 seeking to market its own generic version of Neupro®, UCB
 also filed a lawsuit against Mylan alleging infringement of
 the ’589 patent and U.S. Patent No. 10,350,174. UCB, Inc.
 v. Mylan Techs., Inc., No. 2:19-CV-128, 2020 WL 2300359,
 at *1 (D. Vt. May 8, 2020). The parties stipulated to adopt,
 and the Vermont district court adopted, the Delaware judg-
 ment, opinion, and trial record. J.A. 67–69. This appeal
 consolidates both cases.
     In March 2021, the month UCB’s injunction expired,
 the district court ruled on Actavis’s invalidity defenses.
 Applying the “at once envisage” framework for anticipation
 articulated in Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool
 Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the district court
 found that the Muller patents anticipate all asserted
 claims. UCB II, 2021 WL 1880993, at *20–22. Separately,
 the district court held that the asserted claims would have
 been obvious in view of multiple prior art references, in-
 cluding the Muller patents. Id. at *23–27.
    UCB appeals the district court’s anticipation and obvi-
 ousness determinations. We have jurisdiction under
 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
                         DISCUSSION
     On appeal, UCB argues that the district court erred in
 its anticipation analysis because, contrary to our prece-
 dent, it applied Kennametal to an overlapping ranges case.
 Appellant’s Br. 36–39. UCB also argues that the district
 court’s obviousness analysis is incorrect because, broadly,
 the district court (1) impermissibly relied on hindsight in
 its analysis; and (2) improperly disregarded evidence of
Case: 21-1924       Document: 65     Page: 9    Filed: 04/12/2023

 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.                 9

 objective indicia of nonobviousness.      See Appellant’s
 Br. 49–73. We address anticipation first, followed by obvi-
 ousness.
                                 I
      We start with anticipation. UCB argues that the dis-
 trict court committed legal error by applying the wrong
 law—Kennametal and the “immediately envisage” line of
 cases—in its anticipation analysis. We agree.
      To anticipate a claim, a single “prior art reference must
 disclose each and every element” recited in the claim.
 Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 55 F.4th 900, 910
 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Whether a prior art reference anticipates
 a claim is a question of fact. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem.
 Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Questions of fact
 decided by the district court are reviewed for clear error.
 Id. “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is
 evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire ev-
 idence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
 mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gyp-
 sum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). A court’s application of
 an improper standard to fact “may be corrected as a matter
 of law.” United States v. Singer Mfg. Co., 374 U.S. 174, 194
 n.9 (1963); see also Walther v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
 Servs., 485 F.3d 1146, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
     Our precedent sets forth an established framework for
 analyzing whether a prior art reference anticipates a
 claimed range. The framework varies depending on
 whether the prior art discloses a point within the claimed
 range or discloses its own range that overlaps with the
 claimed range. If the prior art discloses a point within the
 claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See
 Ineos USA LLC v. Berry Plastics Corp., 783 F.3d 865, 869
 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner,
 778 F.2d 775, 782 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). On the other hand, if
 the prior art discloses an overlapping range, the prior art
 anticipates the claimed range “only [] if it describes the
Case: 21-1924    Document: 65       Page: 10    Filed: 04/12/2023

 10                 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.

 claimed range with sufficient specificity such that a rea-
 sonable fact finder could conclude that there is no reasona-
 ble difference in how the invention operates over the
 ranges.” Id. (citing Atofina, 441 F.3d at 999; ClearValue,
 Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1345
 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). In other words, “[o]nce the patent chal-
 lenger has established, through overlapping ranges, its
 prima facie case of anticipation, ‘the court must evaluate
 whether the patentee has established that the claimed
 range is critical to the operability of the claimed inven-
 tion.’” Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 946 F.3d 1333, 1338
 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Ineos, 783 F.3d at 871).
     Here, it is undisputed that the Muller patents disclose
 a range that overlaps with the claimed range. In finding
 that the Muller patents anticipate the asserted claims of
 the ’589 patent, however, the district court did not apply
 the traditional framework for analyzing overlapping
 ranges. Instead, the district court relied on the Ken-
 nametal “immediately envisage” line of cases to identify
 discrete points in Muller’s range and analyzed those dis-
 crete points as a point-within-a-range case. Specifically,
 the district court relied on testimony from an Actavis ex-
 pert, Dr. Robin Rogers, that a person of ordinary skill in
 the art would read Muller’s range to teach “a few examples”
 of TTSs with specific weight ratios, including 9:4 and 9:5
 weight ratios of rotigotine to PVP. UCB II, 2021 WL
 1880993, at *21, ¶ 12 (citing FF 2 ¶ 79 (citing J.A. 1370–71
 (Trial Tr. 313:01–314:20))). The district court also relied
 on another Actavis expert, Dr. Mark Prausnitz, who testi-
 fied that a skilled artisan would see five or so examples,
 including “1.5, 2, 3, 4, [and] 5 [and] maybe you would even
 go to half integers, but a POSA would not expect to look in
 more granular detail than that to calculate th[e] range”

      2   Citations to “FF” refer to the paragraphs within the
 district court’s findings of fact.
Case: 21-1924      Document: 65     Page: 11    Filed: 04/12/2023

 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.                11

 taught by Muller. J.A. 1428 (Trial Tr. 371:03–10). Based
 on this testimony, the district court found that “[a] POSA
 would envisage examples at whole and half integer per-
 centages of PVP and would not look in more granular de-
 tail.” UCB II, 2021 WL 1880993, at *11, ¶ 79. As noted
 above, the envisage language stems from Kennametal,
 where we held that a reference can anticipate a claim “even
 if it ‘does not expressly spell out’ all the limitations ar-
 ranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in
 the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the
 claimed arrangement or combination.” 780 F.3d at 1381
 (cleaned up) (citation omitted). Continuing, the court ana-
 lyzed this case as a point-within-the-range case—not an
 overlapping range case—and found that because a person
 of ordinary skill in the art would readily envisage a combi-
 nation of 9% rotigotine with 4% or 5% PVP by weight from
 the range disclosed by Muller, Muller anticipates the
 ’589 claims’ recitation of a weight range from “about 9:4 to
 about 9:6.” UCB II, 2021 WL 1880993, at *21–22.
     UCB argues that the district court erred by ignoring
 our case law regarding overlapping ranges, which requires
 considering the criticality of the claimed range. We agree.
     The district court’s use of the “immediately envisage”
 line of cases to convert this case into a point-within-a-range
 case constitutes an improper application of our precedent
 governing overlapping ranges. 3 We rejected similar at-
 tempts to convert the disclosure of a range into the disclo-
 sure of individual values in Ineos, 783 F.3d at 869. There,
 we explained that the disclosure of a range is not a

     3    In addition, the court’s fact finding that a person of
 ordinary skill in the art would only consider half and whole
 integers contradicts the specification of the ’589 patent.
 Table 3 of the ’589 patent, for example, discloses a ratio of
 1.6, neither an integer nor a half integer.
Case: 21-1924     Document: 65       Page: 12    Filed: 04/12/2023

 12                  UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.

 disclosure of the endpoints of the range or other discrete
 points within the range. Id.
     The district court’s analysis also improperly extends
 Kennametal, 780 F.3d at 1381–83. As we held in Nidec Mo-
 tor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 851 F.3d
 1270, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2017):
      Kennametal does not stand for the proposition that
      a reference missing a limitation can anticipate a
      claim if a skilled artisan viewing the reference
      would “at once envisage” the missing limitation.
      Rather, Kennametal addresses whether the disclo-
      sure of a limited number of combination possibili-
      ties discloses one of the possible combinations.
     Here, the district court’s use of Kennametal—support-
 ing its finding that Muller’s range recites a specific exam-
 ple and thus that the specific example anticipates the
 entire range recited in the ’589 patent claims—goes beyond
 Kennametal’s intended application. We determine that it
 was legal error for the district court to do so.
      Actavis urges us to nonetheless affirm the district
 court’s finding of anticipation because the district court, in
 effect, conducted the criticality analysis required in over-
 lapping range cases. Appellee’s Br. 46–49; see also Genen-
 tech, 946 F.3d at 1338. Actavis attempts to characterize
 some of the district court’s findings—e.g., that “[t]he 9:4 to
 9:6 ratios produce results that are similar in kind to the
 Prior Art TTS Examples (i.e.[,] 9:2 or 9:3), with similar lev-
 els of stability (i.e., lack of crystallization)”—as a finding of
 criticality for the claimed range of about 9:4 to about 9:6.
 See UCB II, 2021 WL 1880993, at *25, ¶ 44. Even if we
 saw some merit in Actavis’s suggestion, we need not re-
 solve this issue because, as discussed below, we affirm the
 district court’s obviousness determination.
Case: 21-1924      Document: 65      Page: 13   Filed: 04/12/2023

 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.               13

                                II
      We next turn to obviousness. The district court held
 the asserted claims obvious based on two separate grounds,
 including that: (1) the claimed range of weight ratios of ro-
 tigotine to PVP overlap with that disclosed in the Muller
 patents and UCB failed to rebut this prima facie case of
 obviousness; and (2) the prior art’s 9:2 and 9:3 TTS exam-
 ples as modified by Muller’s teachings of a range of 1.5% to
 5% PVP render the claims obvious. 4 UCB II, 2021 WL
 1880993, at *23–26. UCB challenges the district court’s
 holdings on both grounds. Because we affirm the judgment
 of invalidity on the first ground of obviousness, we do not
 reach the second ground.
      The ultimate question of obviousness is a question of
 law based on underlying fact findings. Merck & Co. v. Teva
 Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
 (citation omitted). We review the question of law de novo
 and the underlying fact findings from bench trials for clear
 error. Id. (citation omitted). “A factual finding is only
 clearly erroneous if . . . we are left with the definite and
 firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Merck
 Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira, Inc., 874 F.3d 724, 728
 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted); see also Anderson v. City
 of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985) (“Where there
 are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s
 choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” (citation
 omitted)). Whether prior art teaches away from the
 claimed invention, whether the claimed invention is new
 and unexpected, and “the existence of and weight assigned

     4   The district court also held the asserted claims in-
 valid under obviousness-type double patenting in view of
 claims in the Muller patents. UCB II, 2021 WL 1880993,
 at *26–27. Because we affirm the court’s obviousness de-
 termination, we do not reach its obviousness-type double
 patenting determination.
Case: 21-1924    Document: 65       Page: 14    Filed: 04/12/2023

 14                 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.

 to any objective indicia of nonobviousness,” like commercial
 success, “are underlying factual questions we review for
 clear error.” Adapt Pharma Operations Ltd. v. Teva
 Pharms. USA, Inc., 25 F.4th 1354, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
 (citing Merck, 874 F.3d at 728).
     A presumption of obviousness applies “[w]here a
 claimed range overlaps with a range disclosed in the prior
 art.” Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311
 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). This presumption can
 be overcome if the “prior art teaches away from the claimed
 range, . . . the claimed range produces new and unexpected
 results,” or other evidence demonstrates non-obviousness
 of the claimed range. Id. (citation omitted). “A presump-
 tion of obviousness does not shift the burden of persuasion
 to the patentee to prove nonobviousness, but a presump-
 tion establishes that, ‘absent a reason to conclude other-
 wise, a factfinder is justified in concluding that a disclosed
 range does just that—discloses the entire range.’” Almi-
 rall, LLC v. Amneal Pharms. LLC, 28 F.4th 265, 272
 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co.
 v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
     Here, it is undisputed that the range claimed in the
 ’589 patent overlaps with the ranges taught by the Muller
 patents. Thus, Actavis established a prima facie case of
 obviousness. On appeal, UCB contends that the Muller pa-
 tents do not reflect the state of the art at the time of the
 invention because they precede Form II of rotigotine and,
 as such, their disclosed range cannot render the claimed
 range obvious. In addition, UCB contends that one of the
 district court’s fact findings—finding number 80—is incon-
 sistent with its finding of obviousness based on the Muller
 patents.
     Continuing, UCB contends that a different prior art
 reference—U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0299304
 (Tang)—is actually the closest prior art because, unlike the
 Muller patents, Tang addresses the stability problem.
Case: 21-1924      Document: 65     Page: 15    Filed: 04/12/2023

 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.               15

 UCB further contends that Tang teaches away from the
 claimed range, thus establishing nonobviousness of the
 claimed range. Tang is directed to TTSs with “a therapeu-
 tic agent in a stable amorphous form.” J.A. 4861, [0002].
 It teaches “the importance of the weight ratio of the poly-
 meric stabilizer to the therapeutic agent in stabilizing the
 therapeutic agent.” Id. Specifically, Tang taught that if a
 therapeutic agent has a low Tg, the weight ratio of the pol-
 ymeric material to the amorphous form of a therapeutic
 agent is 2 or greater. J.A. 4862, [0030]. And if the thera-
 peutic agent has a high Tg, the ratio is 0.5 or greater.
 J.A. 4862, [0031]. Tang focused on working examples of
 scopolamine, which is used to treat motion sickness. UCB
 II, 2021 WL 1880993, at *14, ¶¶ 117–20; see also J.A. 4868,
 [0100]. None of Tang’s working examples include rotigo-
 tine as the active ingredient. J.A. 4868–70, [0100]–[0105].
 And Tang does not disclose the Tg of rotigotine. See UCB
 II, 2021 WL 1880993, at *7, ¶ 45.
     In addition, UCB asserted at trial that the claimed
 weight ratio range of “from about 9:4 to about 9:6” exhib-
 ited unexpected results. According to UCB, given the “fail-
 ure” of the Original Neupro® at 9:2, it was expected that
 the only slightly larger claimed range of “about 9:4 to about
 9:6” would exhibit the same stability failure as the prior art
 TTS examples. Appellant’s Br. 45.
      Finally, UCB introduced evidence to establish commer-
 cial success and rebut the prima facie case of obviousness.
 Mainly, UCB introduced evidence of significant sales of re-
 formulated Neupro®. UCB contended that it was entitled
 to a presumption of nexus between these sales and the
 claims because the claims are coextensive with reformu-
 lated Neupro®. Alternatively, UCB explained that the
 sales were tied to the claimed range of rotigotine to PVP
 ratios because “[t]he FDA would not allow Original
 Neupro® to remain on the market, even under cold-chain
 storage, due to the formation of crystals.” Appellant’s
 Br. 62. And without the alleged invention, UCB argues,
Case: 21-1924    Document: 65        Page: 16   Filed: 04/12/2023

 16                 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.

 there is no viable product. Id. (citing various expert testi-
 mony, such as that of Dr. Rahul Guha, who testified that
 when original Neupro® was off the market, previous pa-
 tents existed, and the sales were zero).
     The district court found that the Muller patents, and
 not Tang, are the closest prior art. To support this finding,
 the court reasoned that (1) Tang does not disclose working
 examples with rotigotine; (2) Tang does not disclose the Tg
 of rotigotine; and (3) the Muller patents are the closest
 prior art because, unlike Tang, they disclose and claim a
 TTS with a range of R:PVP ratios including about 9:4 to
 9:5. UCB II, 2021 WL 1880993, at *14, ¶¶ 118–20.
     Continuing, the district court found that the presump-
 tion of obviousness was not overcome based on either the
 prior art teaching away from the claimed range or new and
 unexpected results which are “different in kind and not
 merely in degree.” Id. at *25, ¶ 44 (quoting E.I. DuPont,
 904 F.3d at 1006). The district court also found that no
 other objective indicia of nonobviousness overcame the
 prima facie case of obviousness. Id. at *25, ¶ 42. UCB
 challenges each of these findings on appeal, and we address
 each argument in turn below.
                                 A
      First, the district court did not clearly err in rejecting
 UCB’s argument that Form II changed the state of the art,
 thus rendering all pre-Form II prior art, including the Mul-
 ler patents, irrelevant. As the district court found based on
 expert testimony and prior art, crystallization in both
 Form I and Form II occurs due to hydrogen bonding be-
 tween two rotigotine molecules. As UCB’s expert, Dr. Al-
 lan Myerson, explained, PVP stabilizes amorphous
 rotigotine by creating hydrogen bonds with the individual
 rotigotine molecules, thereby preventing hydrogen bonding
 between rotigotine molecules and thus preventing crystal-
 lization. And while Form II is considered more stable and
 less soluble than Form I, other evidence, including expert
Case: 21-1924      Document: 65     Page: 17    Filed: 04/12/2023

 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.               17

 testimony, indicated that small, rather than systemic,
 changes to TTSs were needed to achieve stabilization. For
 example, original Neupro® was still used in the U.S. under
 a compassionate use program. UCB II, 2021 WL 1880993,
 at *10, ¶ 67. In addition, a medical doctor specializing in
 Parkinson’s disease published an article showing that
 there were no crystallization issues with original Neupro®
 when treating over 100 patients. Id. at *9, ¶ 65. Finally,
 Actavis’s expert, Dr. Prausnitz, explained how the success
 of cold-chain storage for original Neupro® in Europe indi-
 cated that a “relatively small adjustment” of the of R:PVP
 ratios was needed. Id. at *18, ¶ 149 (citing J.A. 1449–50
 (Trial Tr. 392:17–393:04)). In short, we find no clear error
 in the district court’s determination that, due to the simi-
 larities in Form I and Form II, no cataclysmic change ren-
 dered pre-Form II prior art unusable.
     Nor does Finding 80 dictate that pre-Form II prior art
 should be disregarded and thus that Tang is the closest
 prior art. Finding 80 states:
     The range of R:PVP ratios in the Asserted Claims
     in this case and the like range in the Muller Pa-
     tents’ claims significantly overlap and there is no
     meaningful difference in how a POSA would view
     them.
 Id. at *11, ¶ 80. UCB interprets Finding 80 to mean that
 “there is no meaningful difference across the entire range
 in Muller.” Appellant’s Br. 44 (emphasis added). In UCB’s
 view, because original Neupro® (a 9:2 TTS) crystallized,
 Finding 80 means that a person of ordinary skill in the art
 at the time of the invention would consider the entire range
 of 9:1.5 to about 9:6 in the Muller patents similarly flawed.
 But we read Finding 80 in the context of all the other find-
 ings by the district court to simply mean that the claimed
 range and that in the Muller patents are not patentably
 distinct. Any confusion about the meaning of this finding
 is further removed by referencing the district court’s record
Case: 21-1924    Document: 65       Page: 18    Filed: 04/12/2023

 18                 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.

 citation for Finding 80: Actavis’s expert, Dr. Prausnitz,
 testified about the “substantial overlap in the range of 9 to
 4 and 9 to 5 between [the] two claim sets.” J.A. 1455 (Trial
 Tr. 398:02–09 (emphasis added)). In short, UCB misreads
 Finding 80—an error infecting much of its obviousness ar-
 guments on appeal. As such, Finding 80 does not support
 UCB’s argument that all pre-Form II art should be disre-
 garded and hence, that the district court should have rec-
 ognized Tang as the closest prior art. Thus, we find no
 clear error in the district court’s contrary findings.
     We also see no clear error in the district court’s finding
 on teaching away. A reference teaches away “when a per-
 son of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
 discouraged from following the path set out in the refer-
 ence, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path
 that was taken.” Galderma Lab’ys., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.,
 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting DePuy Spine,
 Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327
 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). By contrast, a reference does not teach
 away if it “merely expresses a general preference for an al-
 ternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit or oth-
 erwise discourage’ investigation into the invention
 claimed.” DePuy, 567 F.3d at 1327 (quoting In re Fulton,
 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
     The district court viewed Tang as simply teaching an
 alternative invention. Indeed, the court acknowledged that
 Tang could lead a person of ordinary skill to increase the
 amount of PVP beyond the range of 9:4 to 9:6 ratios of ro-
 tigotine to PVP. UCB II, 2021 WL 1880993, at *26, ¶ 50.
 With knowledge of the Tg for rotigotine free base, UCB’s
 expert, Dr. Myerson, testified that Tang teaches a rotigo-
 tine to PVP weight ratio of 9:18 for long-term stability. But
 the district court found that Tang would not dissuade a per-
 son of ordinary skill in the art from first trying a weight
 ratio within the range of 9:4 to 9:6 rotigotine to PVP. Id.
Case: 21-1924      Document: 65     Page: 19    Filed: 04/12/2023

 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.               19

     In Galderma, we held that the district court erred in
 finding that three prior art references taught away from
 the claimed invention because they merely taught an alter-
 native composition that “may be optimal or standard” that
 was not the claimed invention. 737 F.3d at 739. In partic-
 ular, two of the prior art references mentioned side effects
 for adapalene concentrations from 0.03% to 0.1% but did
 not mention the claimed concentration of 0.3% adapalene.
 Id. at 738–39. Nor did the references “indicate in any way
 that the side effects would be serious enough to dissuade
 the development of a 0.3% adapalene product.” Id. at 739.
 The three references demonstrated that 0.1% was the
 “standard or optimal concentration of adapalene.” Id. We
 held that “teaching that a composition may be optimal or
 standard does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discour-
 age investigation into other compositions.” Id. Thus, the
 prior art references did not teach away.
      Here, the district court’s finding that Tang does not
 teach away is not clearly erroneous for the same reasons.
 Tang does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise dissuade a
 skilled artisan from investigating the claimed range of ra-
 tios. In other words, Tang expresses a preference for a
 higher PVP percentage (a 9:18 rotigotine to PVP weight ra-
 tio), but it does not teach away from the claimed range.
 Contrary to UCB’s suggestion, we do not understand the
 district court’s finding that Tang does not teach away as
 resting on the fact that (1) Tang lacks any reference to the
 Tg of rotigotine and (2) no working examples include rotig-
 otine in Tang. Instead, we understand the district court to
 have reasoned that, like the prior art in Galderma, Tang
 does not expressly teach away from the claim invention.
 Rather, it merely expresses a preference for an optimal con-
 centration (a 9:18 ratio).
     Ultimately, even if we saw some merit in UCB’s view
 of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence. See Teva
 Pharms. USA, Inc. v Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 327 (2015)
 (“A district court judge who has presided over, and listened
Case: 21-1924    Document: 65        Page: 20   Filed: 04/12/2023

 20                 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.

 to, the entirety of a proceeding has a comparatively greater
 opportunity to gain . . . familiarity [with specific scientific
 problems and principles] than an appeals court judge who
 must read a written transcript or perhaps just those por-
 tions to which the parties have referred.”). In view of this
 record, we cannot say that the district court’s finding that
 the prior art does not teach away from the range of 9:4 to
 9:6 weight ratio of rotigotine to PVP is clearly erroneous.
                                 B
     We next address whether the court erred in finding
 that UCB had not established unexpected results. Specifi-
 cally, UCB argues that the lack of crystallization in patches
 having a rotigotine to PVP weight ratio within the 9:4 to
 9:6 weight range is unexpected. This is because, as UCB
 points out, original Neupro® (which had a 9:2 rotigotine to
 PVP weight ratio) was the only existing patch within the
 range of rotigotine to PVP ratios disclosed in the Muller
 patents—and original Neupro® crystallized. See Appel-
 lant’s Br. 52–53. We are not persuaded by UCB’s argu-
 ments and conclude that the district court’s finding is not
 clearly erroneous.
     “To be particularly probative, evidence of unexpected
 results must establish that there is a difference between
 the results obtained and those of the closest prior art, and
 that the difference would not have been expected by one of
 ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” Bris-
 tol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 752 F.3d
 967, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). A difference of
 degree is not as persuasive as a difference in kind—i.e., if
 the range produces “a new property dissimilar to the
 known property,” rather than producing a predictable re-
 sult but to an unexpected extent. Id. Furthermore, evi-
 dence of superior efficacy does not undercut a reasonable
 expectation of success. See Hoffmann–La Roche Inc.
 v. Apotex Inc., 748 F.3d 1326, 1331, 1333–34 (Fed. Cir.
 2014).
Case: 21-1924      Document: 65      Page: 21      Filed: 04/12/2023

 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.                    21

      The district court found that the claimed range did not
 produce new and unexpected results. The court deter-
 mined that results obtained in the alleged invention and
 those in prior art, like the ’747 Muller patent, are “similar
 in kind . . . [and] with similar levels of stability (i.e., lack of
 crystallization).” UCB II, 2021 WL 1880993, at *25, ¶ 44.
 We read the district court’s finding of similar levels of sta-
 bility as a finding that any differences in stability between
 the claimed range and prior art is one of degree.
 Dr. Prausnitz’s expert testimony, cited by the court, id., ex-
 plains that adding slightly more PVP increased stability,
 but that such a change is one of degree; “there would be no
 new properties,” J.A. 1469 (Trial Tr. 412:07–22).
      The court relied on other evidence to support its finding
 that a person of ordinary skill would expect the claimed ro-
 tigotine to PVP weight ratio range and the range disclosed
 in the prior art to provide stability in a similar way. See
 UCB II, 2021 WL 1880993, at *25, ¶ 46 (citing FF ¶¶ 41–
 43, 129, 134). For example, the district court cited to prior
 art and expert testimony showing that PVP was “the most
 effective crystallization inhibitor” tested.         DTX-118
 at 118.001; see also UCB II, 2021 WL 1880993, at *25, ¶ 46
 (citing FF ¶ 41 (J.A. 1405–06 (Trial Tr. 348:09–349:10) (ex-
 plaining that the chemistry underlying rotigotine/PVP in-
 teractions “was very well understood in 2009”); JTX-6
 (Schacht) at [0059] (explaining that a “particularly pre-
 ferred example of . . . a crystallization inhibitor is soluble
 [PVP]”))).
      Further, the court found that a person of ordinary skill
 would expect that increasing the concentration of PVP in a
 TTS would increase the stability of the amorphous drug.
 UCB II, 2021 WL 1880993, at *7, ¶ 43. In support of its
 finding, the court relied on UCB’s expert, Dr. Myerson, who
 testified that, as a general principle, “increas[ing] . . . PVP
 should increase the stability,” although one would need ex-
 periments to verify how much the stability increases. Id.
 (citing J.A. 1681–82 (Trial Tr. 583:24–584:14)).
Case: 21-1924     Document: 65       Page: 22    Filed: 04/12/2023

 22                  UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.

     The district court also found that a person of ordinary
 skill in the art would know that only minor changes to the
 amount of PVP were needed to address crystallization of
 original Neupro® given the success with cold-chain storage.
 Id. at *16, ¶ 134. The court cited Actavis’s expert, Dr. Rog-
 ers, who testified that cold storage helps reduce crystalli-
 zation of amorphous materials (which occurs when
 molecules bond to each other), because the cold reduces the
 mobility of molecules.           Id. (citing J.A. 1128 (Trial
 Tr. 109:09–22)). The court also leaned on Actavis’s expert,
 Dr. Prausnitz, who testified that the lack of crystallization
 at cold temperatures for the 9:2 patch suggests “that a fun-
 damental change in the patch design isn’t needed” and, in-
 stead, “increasing PVP is going to be something that can
 get . . . over this hurdle [of crystallization] and increase the
 stability.” Id. (citing J.A. 1449–50 (Trial Tr. 392:17–
 393:04)).
     UCB explains that there is clear evidence of unex-
 pected results because “embodiments of the claimed range
 do inhibit crystals, whereas those immediately neighboring
 among the Muller range do not.” Appellant’s Br. 27–28.
 According to UCB, the district court erred because (1) per
 Finding 80, a person of ordinary skill would have expected
 the entire Muller range to crystallize after Form II, Appel-
 lant’s Br. 52–53; (2) the district court ignores “the crux” of
 the ’589 patent’s results—improved long-term, room tem-
 perature stability as opposed to stability in general terms,
 Appellant’s Br. 54; (3) the court dismissed evidence of un-
 expected results solely based on UCB’s own internal-confi-
 dential efforts of trying a 9:4 patch within weeks of
 learning of Form II and the crystallization problem, Appel-
 lant’s Br. 28, 35, 49; and (4) the district court’s statement
 that the range claim was “similar in kind” to the prior art
 TTS examples “became categorically untrue after Form II
 appeared,” Appellant’s Br. 53.
    First, as mentioned above, UCB misreads Finding 80.
 That original Neupro® (9:2) crystallized does not dictate
Case: 21-1924      Document: 65     Page: 23    Filed: 04/12/2023

 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.               23

 that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
 invention would think that the entire Muller patent range
 (of about 9:1.5 to 9:5) would crystallize.
      Second, UCB’s references to “long-term, room temper-
 ature stability” reflect UCB’s failed claim construction ar-
 gument.      J.A. 1006 n.4; J.A. 1000–10.     During claim
 construction UCB argued that claim 1’s “method for stabi-
 lizing rotigotine” required it to be “capable of maintaining
 the non-crystalline rotigotine in noncrystalline form for at
 least 2 years at room temperature or temperatures not ex-
 ceeding [25 degrees Celsius].” J.A. 1006 n.4. The district
 court disagreed, rejecting the importation of a limitation
 from the specification. Id. UCB does not challenge the dis-
 trict court’s claim construction on appeal. Accordingly,
 UCB’s argument that the district court ignored long-term
 room temperature stability fails.
     Third, UCB is correct that, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
 “[p]atentability shall not be negated by the manner in
 which the invention was made.” But the district court did
 not solely rely on the inventor’s path for its factual deter-
 mination. As noted above, the court relied on scientific
 principles like the known effects of PVP and expert testi-
 mony regarding a difference in “degree.” See UCB II, 2021
 WL 1880993, at *25, ¶¶ 44, 46. Separately, UCB’s own ex-
 pert, Dr. Richard Guy, testified that “a person of ordinary
 skill in the art would kind of do what LTS and UCB did,”
 J.A. 1850–53 (Trial Tr. 752:04–755:09), and the court did
 not clearly err in considering such testimony. Accordingly,
 any error by the district court in this regard was harmless.
     Finally, we are not left with a definite and firm convic-
 tion that the district court erred in finding that the claimed
 range was “similar in kind” to the prior art TTS examples
 even after Form II. As noted above, the court cited Ac-
 tavis’s expert, Dr. Prausnitz, who testified that the change
 in stability was one of degree. See UCB II, 2021 WL
 1880993, at *25, ¶ 44 (citing J.A. 1469 (Trial Tr. 412:07–
Case: 21-1924    Document: 65        Page: 24   Filed: 04/12/2023

 24                 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.

 22)). The court also heard UCB’s evidence on Form II, in-
 cluding UCB’s expert testimony on how Form II changed
 the state of the art. As discussed above, the district court
 was entitled to weigh the conflicting expert testimony on
 this point and did not clearly err in declining to adopt
 UCB’s view.
     In sum, the district court’s finding that the claimed
 range did not produce new and unexpected results is not
 clearly erroneous.
                                 C
      Finally, we address whether the district court erred in
 its analysis of UCB’s evidence of commercial success. Spe-
 cifically, UCB argues that the district court erred in finding
 no nexus, which led it to disregard the commercial success
 of reformulated Neupro®. See Appellant’s Br. 41. We dis-
 agree.
     We have repeatedly held that evidence of commercial
 success must have a nexus to the claims to be given weight
 in an obviousness analysis. In other words, there must be
 “a legally and factually sufficient connection” between the
 evidence and the patent claims. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM,
 LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omit-
 ted). Simply speaking, there may be many reasons a prod-
 uct is commercially successful; it is only where the success
 is due to the claimed invention that commercial success can
 show nonobviousness.
      We have recognized that a patentee is entitled to a re-
 buttable presumption of nexus where the patentee shows
 that the commercial success is tied to a specific product and
 that the product is the invention disclosed or claimed. Id.
 (citation omitted). Even if a presumption of nexus is inap-
 propriate, a patentee can prove nexus “by showing that the
 evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of
 the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Id.
Case: 21-1924      Document: 65     Page: 25    Filed: 04/12/2023

 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.               25

 at 1373–74 (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140
 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
     Here, the district court held that UCB was not entitled
 to a presumption of nexus under Fox Factory because nu-
 merous patents covered Neupro®. UCB II, 2021 WL
 1880993, at *26, ¶ 53. In the alternative, the district court
 held that any inference of obviousness from UCB’s com-
 mercial success evidence is weak because the Muller pa-
 tents have operated as blocking patents dissuading
 competitors from developing a rotigotine TTS. Id. at *26,
 ¶ 54. Because the district court did not clearly err in find-
 ing UCB’s evidence of commercial success weak, we are not
 persuaded by UCB’s arguments on appeal.
     As in Merck and Galderma, the district court was enti-
 tled to consider the existence of blocking patents when
 weighing UCB’s evidence of commercial success. In Merck
 and Galderma, we held that where market entry by others
 was precluded due to blocking patents, the inference of
 non-obviousness of the asserted claims from evidence of
 commercial success may be weak. See Galderma, 737 F.3d
 at 740 (citing Merck, 395 F.3d at 1377). For example, in
 Galderma, we explained that Galderma’s earlier patents
 blocked the market entry of the claimed improvement di-
 rected to a particular concentration of adapalene until long
 after the time of the invention. Id. at 740. As such, “no
 entity other than Galderma could have successfully
 brought to 0.3% to market prior to [the time of the inven-
 tion],” and thus the commercial success evidence was of
 “minimal probative value.” Id. at 740–41.
     Here, the district court found that UCB’s Muller pa-
 tents weakened its evidence of commercial success. UCB
 II, 2021 WL 1880993, at *26, ¶ 54 (quoting Galderma,
 737 F.3d at 740–41). The district court explained that “the
 Muller Patents have operated as blocking patents, dissuad-
 ing competitors from developing a rotigotine TTS, at least
 until the expiration of the ’434 [Muller] Patent.” Id. (citing
Case: 21-1924    Document: 65      Page: 26    Filed: 04/12/2023

 26                UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.

 FF ¶¶ 158–61). We cannot say that the court clearly erred
 in its analysis given its reliance on our precedent and ex-
 pert testimony. Indeed, the court’s fact findings were fully
 supported by expert testimony from Mr. Ivan T. Hofmann.
 Id. at *19, ¶ 158. Mr. Hofmann, Actavis’ economic expert,
 testified that he identified the Muller patents as blocking
 patents because the “parameters that existed in prior pa-
 tents that would deter anyone other than UCB from con-
 ceding the alleged invention of the ’589 patent.” J.A. 1907
 (Trial Tr. 809:14–810:17). He opined that “essentially no-
 body other than UCB ha[d] an economic incentive to have
 conceived of the alleged invention that’s described in the
 ’589 patent.” J.A. 1900 (Trial Tr. 802:17–19).
     UCB argues that even when existing patents cover a
 drug, companies still engage in drug development, and the
 court’s analysis would effectively brand all co-owned pa-
 tents “blocking” patents. Appellant’s Br. 63–64 (citing
 J.A. 1882–86 (Trial Tr. 784:05–788:06)). As an example,
 UCB cites to the Tang reference as evidence that Mylan
 sought patent protection for its own transdermal rotigotine
 system despite the existence of the Muller patents to show
 that companies engage in drug development despite exist-
 ing patents covering that drug. Appellant’s Br. 64.
     We disagree that the court’s analysis brands all co-
 owned patents as “blocking” patents. The court noted that
 UCB has held exclusive worldwide rights to rotigotine for
 all therapeutic indications since 1998, UCB II, 2021 WL
 1880993, at *19, ¶ 159; that until the ’434 Muller patent
 expired, Actavis was enjoined from marketing a generic
 version of reformulated Neupro®, id. at *26, ¶ 53; and cited
 expert testimony from Mr. Hofmann who explained that
 the Muller patents would deter anyone other than UCB
 from developing the alleged invention in the ’589 patent,
 id. at *19, ¶ 158 (citing J.A. 1900–01 (Trial Tr. 802:11–
 803:08)). By contrast, UCB’s expert, Dr. Guha, did not an-
 alyze whether UCB’s multiple patents were responsible for
 commercial success. Id. at *19, ¶ 160. The district court,
Case: 21-1924      Document: 65     Page: 27    Filed: 04/12/2023

 UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.               27

 in determining that UCB’s extensive patent rights reduced
 the weight of the evidence of commercial success, did not
 impermissibly create a bright-line rule; instead, it limited
 its analysis to the specific facts in the record.
     UCB essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence, giv-
 ing greater weight to Tang and Dr. Guha, one of UCB’s ex-
 perts, to find the evidence of commercial success overcomes
 the prima facie case of obviousness. For example, Dr. Guha
 explained that there might be an incentive for both a pa-
 tentee and third party to come to a licensing agreement for
 a drug protected by patents when a third party “expands
 the pie” by, for example, creating a better formulation of a
 drug that expands the product or, here, getting original
 Neupro® back into the U.S. market. J.A. 1882–86 (Trial
 Tr. 784:09–788:06). But the district court already consid-
 ered this testimony and argument, and it is not our prov-
 ince to reweigh evidence under these circumstances. See
 Teva Pharms., 574 U.S. at 327.
     Contrary to UCB’s assertions, the district court did
 consider that reformulated Neupro® allowed UCB to re-en-
 ter the U.S. market. The court’s assignment of minimal
 weight to this evidence was not clearly erroneous given ev-
 idence that original Neupro® remained in the U.S. market
 through the compassionate use program. See UCB II, 2021
 WL 1880993, at *10, ¶ 67.
     We also disagree that the district court’s decision
 lacked extensive analysis. UCB alleges, for example, that
 the district court’s statement that the slight adjustment of
 PVP content in reformulated Neupro® is not what drives
 demand is conclusory. See id. at *19, ¶ 161; Reply Br. 28.
 But the preceding sentence explains that efficacy and
 safety of a rotigotine-containing TTS drive sales in refor-
 mulated Neupro®. For support, the court cites to Mr. Hof-
 mann, Actavis’s expert, who testified that “what’s really
 driving the [relaunch] sales are the safety and efficacy of a
 transdermal patch with rotigotine in a known weight ratio
Case: 21-1924     Document: 65        Page: 28   Filed: 04/12/2023

 28                  UCB, INC.   v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC.

 that was already known.” See UCB II, 2021 WL 1880993,
 at *19, ¶ 161 (citing J.A. 1900–02 (Trial Tr. 802:14–
 804:10)). Thus, we are unpersuaded by UCB’s argument.
      As for the rest of the district court’s decision, we do not
 consider it “devoid of meaningful analysis” as UCB argues,
 citing OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. American Induction Tech-
 nologies, Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 707 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See Reply
 Br. 30. In OSRAM, the district court “did not make any
 specific findings of fact and gave no basis” to understand
 its prior statement that disputed issues of fact existed.
 701 F.3d at 707. The appellee there countered that the
 findings were “ascertainable from the parties’ own argu-
 ments,” but we held that it was not our role to “scour the
 record and search for something to justify a [district]
 court’s conclusion.” Id. In contrast, here, the district court
 provided over forty pages of specific findings of fact and ci-
 tations to such findings in its conclusions of law, as dis-
 cussed above.
     In sum, we find that the district court did not clearly
 err in finding that the evidence of commercial success is
 weak.
                              * * *
     We have considered UCB’s remaining arguments on
 appeal and find them unpersuasive. In light of the eviden-
 tiary record, we do not see any error with the court’s con-
 clusion of obviousness based on the Muller patents.
                          CONCLUSION
     For the reasons above, we affirm the district court’s
 judgment that the asserted claims are invalid as obvious.
                         AFFIRMED