GlaxoSmithKline is appealing a Delaware federal district judge's ruling that wiped out a $235 million verdict against Teva Pharmaceuticals for allegedly infringing a patent for the hypertension drug Coreg.

GSK's Fish & Richardson attorneys on Monday filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seeking to overturn U.S. District Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware's final judgment last month that Teva's ”skinny label” for a generic version of Coreg did not induce infringement of GSK's patent.

A Wilmington jury originally found in favor of GSK last summer and awarded the Philadelphia-based drugmaker $234.1 million for lost profits and another $1.4 million in royalties after a six-day trial in June. But Stark reversed the verdict in a post-trial opinion, ruling that the evidence in the case did not support a finding of induced infringement against Teva.

The notice of appeal was signed by Douglas E. McCann, a principal in Fish's Delaware office. Representatives from GSK and Teva did not return calls Tuesday seeking comment on the case.

GSK, however, has said there was “ample” evidence that Teva had improperly marketed its generic as a substitute for Coreg. The company argued in post-trial briefing, that Teva's label for the beta-blocker carvedilol had encouraged patients and doctors to use its product to treat congestive heart failure, or CHF, even though it had a specific “carve out” that excluded the chronic disease.

Teva, whose U.S. operations are based in North Wales, Pennsylvania, has argued that a host of other factors had led doctors to prescribe its generic for uses other than the narrow indication listed on its label. In court documents, Teva said physicians had been influenced by industry publications, research studies and even GSK's own marketing—and not Teva's skinny label alone.

In March, Stark sided with GSK on the issue of inducement, though he did not disturb the jury's decision to uphold the validity of GSK's patent.

“The court's determination, however, is that—given the dearth of evidence that doctors read and understand and are affected by labels, and given the vast amount of evidence that doctors' decisions to prescribe carvedilol during the relevant periods were influenced by multiple non-Teva factors—such an inference was an unreasonable one for the jury to have drawn,” he wrote in a 26-page opinion.

Final judgment in the case was entered April 25.

According to court filings, Teva is reserving its affirmative defenses in the case, while GSK plans to argue for enhanced damages, should the Federal Circuit reinstate the verdict.

Attorneys for both sides were not immediately available to comment.

GSK was represented by W. Chad Shear, Martina Tyreus Hufnal, Craig Countryman, Douglas E. McCann, Elizabeth M. Flanagan, Jeremy D. Anderson, Michael A. Amon, Robert M. Yeh and William R. Woodford of Fish & Richardson. Limin Zheng, formerly of Fish, was also listed as an attorney who represented GSK. Fish lawyers came from the firm's Southern California, Delaware and Twin Cities offices.

Teva was represented by Christopher T. Holding, Daryl L. Wiesen, Alexandra Lu, Andrew E. Riley, Corrine L. Lusic, Ira J. Levy, J. Anthony Downs and Jennifer L. Ford of Goodwin Procter.

The case is captioned GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA.