Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
EPA Drug Initiative II v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2021-2024 · judgment February 15, 2022
Before the decision, about 1.9× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a federal-government petitioner, a Federal Circuit decision below, and a petition filed soon after the judgment below, and down for a business respondent.
Question presented
Under this Court’s Rule 10(a), certiorari can be granted where a United States court of appeals has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings and/or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power. That is exactly what happened here where: (1) Respondents deliberately cropped a key Table in their Proposed Post-Trial Findings of Fact so as to constitute a fraud upon the court; (2) the District Court was misled to the point of literally copying the Cropped Table into its Opinion and then relying upon it to erroneously invalidate otherwise valid patents on grounds of obviousness in a situation where if the full Table was relied upon, the District Court would have reached the exact opposite conclusion and would have not invalidated the otherwise valid patents on grounds of obviousness; (3) in direct contravention of Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), both the District Court and the Federal Circuit wholly ignored and failed to remedy Respondents’ fraud on the court on grounds of standing, when Petitioner attempted to intervene to right this wrong; and (4) the consequences of this unremedied fraud upon the court have been devastating on multiple levels. The questions presented are: 1. By completely ignoring and failing to remedy Respondents’ fraud upon the court in direct contravention of Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), did the Federal Circuit so far depart from the accepted and usual
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Michael Scott Kasanoff
Michael S. Kasanoff, LLC
For respondent
Charles Bennett Klein
Winston & Strawn LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Jun 27 2022Petition DENIED.
- Jun 07 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/23/2022.
- May 23 2022Waiver of right of respondent Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. to respond filed.
- May 20 2022Waiver of right of respondents Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.; Hikma Pharmaceuticals International Limited; West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited (n/k/a Hikma Pharmaceuticals International Limited) to respond filed.
- May 16 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 17, 2022)