By Sherri
Oslick —

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

Simonian v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al.
1:10-cv-01297; filed February 25, 2010 in the
Northern District of Illinois

• Plaintiff:  Thomas A Simonian
• Defendants:  Merck & Co., Inc.;
Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc.

False marking based on Merck's marking of its
Claritin-D and Dr. Scholl's Double Air Pillo Insoles products indicating that
these products are covered by U.S. Patent Nos. 4,863,931 ("Antihistaminic Fluoro
Substituted Benzocycloheptapyridines," issued September 5, 1989) and
4,642,912 ("Shoe Insole," issued February 17, 1987), which are
expired.  View the complaint here.

Simonian v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
1:10-cv-01308; filed February 25, 2010 in the
Northern District of Illinois

False marking based on Novartis' marking of its
Hypo Tears® products indicating that these products are covered by U.S. Patent
No. 4,409,205 ("Ophthalmic Solution," issued October 11, 1983), which
is expired.  View the complaint here.

Simonian v. Novartis Animal Health US, Inc.
1:10-cv-01267; filed February 24, 2010 in the
Northern District of Illinois

False marking based on Novartis'
marking of its Interceptor® products indicating that these products are covered
by U.S. Patent No. 4,547,520 ("5-Oxime Derivatives of Milbemycins and Veterinary
and Agricultural use Thereof," issued October 15, 1985), which is
expired.  View the complaint here.

Simonian v. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc.
1:10-cv-01268; filed February 24, 2010 in the
Northern District of Illinois

False marking based on Novartis' marking of its
Prevacid® products indicating that these products are covered by U.S. Patent
No. 4,628,098 ("2-[2-pyridylmethylthio-(sulfinyl)]benzimidazoles,"
issued December 9, 1986), which is expired.  View the complaint here.

Public Patent Foundation, Inc. v. Novartis Consumer Health,
Inc.
1:10-cv-01553; filed February 24, 2010 in the
Southern District of New York

False marking based on Novartis' marking of its
Prevacid® products indicating that these products are covered by U.S. Patent
No. 4,628,098 ("2-[2-pyridylmethylthio-(sulfinyl)]benzimidazoles,"
issued December 9, 1986), which is expired.  View the complaint here.

O'Neill v. Roche Diagnostics Corp.
1:10-cv-01205; filed February 23, 2010 in the
Northern District of Illinois

False marking based on Roche's marking of its
ACCU-CHEK® products indicating that these products are covered by U.S. Patent
Nos. 4,891,319 ("Protection of Proteins and the Like," issued January
2, 1990), 4,924,879 ("Blood Lancet Device," issued May 15, 1990), and
4,999,582 ("Biosensor Electrode Excitation Circuit," issued March 12,
1991), which are expired.  View the
complaint here.

Simonian v. Pfizer, Inc.
1:10-cv-01193; filed February 23, 2010 in the
Northern District of Illinois

False marking based on Pfizer's marking of its
Advil® products indicating that these products are covered by U.S. Patent No.
5,071,643 ("Solvent System Enhancing the Solubility of Pharmaceuticals for
Encapsulation," issued December 10, 1991), which is expired.  View the complaint here.

Simonian v. Merial L.L.C. et al.
1:10-cv-01216; filed February 23, 2010 in the
Northern District of Illinois

• Plaintiff:  Thomas A Simonian
• Defendants:  Merial L.L.C.; Merial, Inc.

False marking based on Merial's marking of its
Heartguard Heartworm Canine Medication products indicating that these products
are covered by U.S. Patent No. 4,199,569 ("Selective Hydrogenation Products
of C-076 Compounds and Derivatives Thereof," issued April 22, 1980), which
is expired.  View the complaint here.

Hollander v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Inc.
2:10-cv-00793; filed February 23, 2010 in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania

False marking based on Novartis' marking of its
Ultravate® products indicating that these products are covered by U.S. Patent
No. 4,619,921 ("Polyhalogeno-Steroids," issued October 28, 1986),
which is expired.  View the
complaint here.