Court Report - March 02, 2014

Gavel About Court Report:  Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Watson Laboratories Inc. et al.
1:14-cv-00268; filed February 27, 2014 in the District Court of Delaware

• Plaintiff:  Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
• Defendants:  Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis Inc.

Infringement of U.S Patent Nos. 7,619,004 ("Methods for Concomitant Administration of Colchicine and Macrolide Antibiotics," issued November 17, 2009), 7,601,758 ("Methods for Concomitant Administration of Colchicine and Macrolide Antibiotics in the Treatment of Gout Flares," issued October 13, 2009), 7,820,681 ("Methods for Concomitant Administration of Colchicine and a Second Active Agent," issued October 26, 2010), 7,915,269 (same title, issued March 29, 2011), 7,964,647 ("Colchicine Compositions and Methods," issued June 21, 2011), 7,964,648 ("Methods for Concomitant Administration of Colchicine and a Second Active Agent," issued June 21, 2011), 7,981,938 ("Colchicine Compositions and Methods," issued July 19, 2011), 8,093,296 ("Methods for Concomitant Administration of Colchicine and Macrolide Antibiotics," issued January 10, 2012), 8,093,297 ("Methods for Concomitant Administration of Colchicine and a Second Active Agent," issued January 10, 2012), 8,097,655 ("Methods for Concomitant Administration of Colchicine and Macrolide Antibiotics," issued January 17, 2012), 8,415,395 ("Colchicine Compositions and Methods," issued April 9, 2013), 8,415,396 (same title, issued April 9, 2013), 8,440,721 ("Methods for Concomitant Administration of Colchicine and a Second Active Agent," issued May 14, 2013), and 8,440,722 (same title, issued May 14, 2013) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Watson's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Takeda's Colcrys® (single-ingredient colchicine product, used to prevent and treat gout flares).  View the complaint here.

Lyne Laboratories, Inc. et al. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc.
1:14-cv-10460; filed February 27, 2014 in the District Court of Massachusetts

• Plaintiffs:  Lyne Laboratories, Inc.; Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc.; Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.
• Defendant:  Roxane Laboratories, Inc.

Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,591,938 ("Liquid Compositions of Calcium Acetate," issued November 26, 2013) and 8,592,480 (same title, issued November 26, 2013) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Roxane's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Fesenius' Phoslyra® (calcium acetate oral solution, used as a phosphate binder for the reduction of serum phosphorus in patients with end stage renal disease).  View the complaint here.

Sanofi et al. v. Glenmark Generics Inc. USA et al.
1:14-cv-00264; filed February 26, 2014 in the District Court of Delaware

• Plaintiffs:  Sanofi; Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC
• Defendants:  Glenmark Generics Inc. USA; Glenmark Generics Ltd.

Sanofi et al. v. Watson Laboratories Inc. et al.
1:14-cv-00265; filed February 26, 2014 in the District Court of Delaware

• Plaintiffs:  Sanofi; Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC
• Defendants:  Watson Laboratories Inc.; Watson Pharma Inc.; Actavis Inc.

The complaints in these cases are substantially identical.  Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,318,800 ("Solid Pharmaceutical Compositions Containing Benzofuran Derivatives," issued November 27, 2012), 8,410,167 ("Use of Dronedarone for the Preparation of a Medicament for Use in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Hospitalization or of Mortality," issued April 2, 2013), and 8,602,215 ("Methods for Reducing the Risk of an Adverse Dronedarone/Beta-Blockers Interaction in a Patient Suffering from Atrial Fibrillation," issued December 10, 2013 following a Paragraph IV certification as part of defendats' filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Sanofi's Multaq® (dronedarone, used to reduce the risk of hospitalization for atrial fibrillation in patients in sinus rhythm with a history of paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation).  View the Glenmark complaint here.

Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Perrigo Israel Pharmaceutical Ltd. et al.
3:14-cv-01241; filed February 25, 2014 in the District Court of New Jersey

• Plaintiff:  Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc.
• Defendants:  Perrigo Israel Pharmaceutical Ltd.; Perrigo Company; L. Perrigo Co.; Impax Laboratories, Inc.

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,518,919 ("Compositions Comprising Azelastine and Methods of Use Thereof," issued August 27, 2013) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of defendats' filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Meda's Astepro® (azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray, used to treat hay fever and allergy symptoms).  View the complaint here.

 

Topics:  Biotechnology, Patent Infringement, Patent Litigation, Patents, Pharmaceutical

Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, Intellectual Property Updates, Science, Computers & Technology Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »