Case: 24-1401 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD., AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendants MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LTD., MSN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants-Appellants ______________________ 2024-1401 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in Nos. 1:20-cv-00985-GBW, 1:20-cv- 01029-GBW, Judge Gregory Brian Williams. ______________________ Decided: June 9, 2025 ______________________ CHAD PETERMAN, Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY, for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by PETER E.

CONWAY, SCOTT FREDERICK PEACHMAN, BRUCE M. WEXLER; FELIX EYZAGUIRRE, Houston, TX.

Case: 24-1401 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2025

2 ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD.

CHAD A. LANDMON, Polsinelli PC, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellants. Also represented by CHRISTOPHER JONES; THOMAS K. HEDEMANN, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, Hartford, CT. ______________________ Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Chief Judge.

MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. and MSN Pharmaceu- ticals, Inc. (collectively, MSN) appeal an order from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting summary judgment of no invalidity because it held claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,566,271 cannot be an ob- viousness-type double patenting (ODP) reference for claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,601,740. Both parties agree this case is entirely controlled by our recent decision in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., 111 F.4th 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2024), which issued after briefing in this case was completed. Citation of Suppl. Authority at 1–2 (Feb. 24, 2025), ECF No. 27 (MSN 28(j) Ltr.); Resp. to Ci- tation of Suppl. Authority at 1 (Mar. 3, 2025), ECF No. 28.

MSN recognizes its only recourse is en banc action. MSN 28(j) Ltr. at 1. We apply Allergan’s holding that “a first- filed, first-issued, later-expiring claim cannot be invali- dated by a later-filed, later-issued, earlier-expiring refer- ence claim having a common priority date,” 111 F.4th at 1369, and conclude claim 5 of the ’271 patent is not a proper ODP reference that can be used to invalidate claim 26 of the ’740 patent. 1 AFFIRMED

1 We do not reach the district court’s alternative ground for rejecting ODP—that the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 121 protects the ’740 patent against the ’271 patent. J.A. 6–12; MSN Br. 20–38; Acadia Br. 30–64.