Court Report

    By Sherri Oslick --

About Court Report:  Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases, and a few interesting cases will be selected for periodic monitoring.

Monsanto Company et al. v. Gastel
3:07-cv-05119; filed December 12, 2007 in the Western District of Missoui

Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,352,605 ("Chimeric Genes for Transforming Plant Cells Using Viral Promoters," issued October 4, 1994) and RE39,247 ("Glyphosate-tolerant 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate Synthases," issued August 22, 2006) based on defendant's use of soybean seed produced from earlier planted Roundup Ready® soybean seed.  View the complaint here.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
1:07-cv-00805; filed December 11, 2007 in the District Court of Delaware

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. et al.
1:07-cv-00806; filed December 11, 2007 in the District Court of Delaware

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al. v. Sandoz Inc.
1:07-cv-00807; filed December 11, 2007 in the District Court of Delaware

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc.
1:07-cv-00808; filed December 11, 2007 in the District Court of Delaware

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al.
1:07-cv-00809; filed December 11, 2007 in the District Court of Delaware

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. et al.
1:07-cv-00810; filed December 11, 2007 in the District Court of Delaware

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al. v. Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.
1:07-cv-00811; filed December 11, 2007 in the District Court of Delaware

Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al. v. Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.
2:07-cv-00815; filed December 13, 2007 in the Middle District of Florida

The complaints in these cases are substantially identical.  Infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE37,314 ("Pyrimidine Derivatives," issued August 7, 2001) following a paragraph IV certification as part of defendants' filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of AstraZeneca's Crestor® (rosuvastatin calcium, used to treat high cholesterol).  View the Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. complaint here.

Sanofi-Aventis et al. v. Apotex, Inc. et al.
0:07-cv-61800; filed December 10, 2006 in the Southern District of Florida

Sanofi-Aventis et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al.
1:07-cv-00792; filed December 6, 2007 in the District Court of Delaware

The complaints in these cases are substantially identical.  Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,661,491 ("Alfuzosine Compositions and Use," issued April 28, 1987) following a paragraph IV certification as part of Apotex's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of plaintiffs' Uroxatral® (alfuzosin hydrochloride, used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia).  View the Delaware complaint here.

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH et al. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA et al.
2:07-cv-05855; filed December 7, 2007 in the District Court of New Jersey

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,721,244 ("Combination of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors with Calcium Antagonists As Well As Their Use in Drugs," issued February 24, 1998) following a paragraph IV certification as part of Glenmark's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of plaintiffs' Tarka® (trandolapril and verapamil hydrochloride, used to treat hypertension).  View the complaint here.

Pamlab, L.L.C. v. Cura Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. et al.
1:07-cv-02546; filed December 7, 2007 in the District Court of Colorado

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,528,496 ("Compositions Treating, Preventing, or Reducing Elevated Metabolic Levels," issued March 4, 2003) based on Cura's manufacture and sale of its Folnate and Folnate Plus, allegedy generic versions of Pamlab's Foltx® (vitamin B12, vitamin B6, and folic acid, used to treat hyperhomo-cysteinemia).  View the complaint here.

Pfizer, Inc. et al v. Cobalt Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
1:07-cv-12257; filed December 7, 2007 in the District Court of Massachusetts

Pfizer Inc. et al. v. Cobalt Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
1:07-cv-00790; filed December 6, 2007 in the District Court of Delaware

The complaints in these cases are substantially identical.  Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,273,995 ("[R-(R*R*)]-2-(4-fluorophenyl)-beta, delta-dihydroxy-5-(1-methylethyl-3-phenyl-4-[(phenylamino) carbonyl]- 1H-pyrrole-1-heptanoic acid, its lactone form and salts thereof," issued December 28, 1993) based on Cobalt's filing of an NDA (under § 505(b)(2) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act) to manufacture a generic version of Pfizer's Lipitor® (atorvastatin calcium, used to treat high cholesterol and heart disease).  View the Delaware complaint here.

Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.
3:07-cv-05820; filed December 6, 2007 in the District Court of New Jersey

Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,511,678 ("Controlled Release Formulation of Divalproex Sodium," issued January 28, 2003), 6,528,090 (same title, issued March 4, 2003), 6,713,086 (same title, issued March 30, 2004), and 6,720,004 (same title, issued April 13, 2004) following a paragraph IV certification as part of Sandoz's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Abbott's Depakote® ER (divalproex sodium, used to treat manic episodes associated with bipolar disorder, epilepsy, and migraine headaches).  View the complaint here.

Comments

[Sam]

Astra has filed similar complaint against Cobalt in District Court of Delaware & Florida.
Why similar complaint in two different courts? Can any one through some lights?

[Sherri Oslick]

Sam: This is a frequent tactic when there may be concerns about personal jurisdiction in a particular district. Plaintiffs will often file where they prefer the case be heard (and where they hope a challenge to PJ is not effective) and also where PJ is guaranteed to be found. In the end, the case is heard one place or the other. In this particular instance, Cobalt's US headquarters are in Florida, so PJ is assured there - hence the filing in Florida in addition to Delaware. Thanks for the comment, and for reading Court Report.

[Sam]

Thanks Sherri. One confusion. In this circumstances, why plaintiff filed in Delaware also? He could have filed only in Florida.

[Sherri Oslick]

Sam: You may have noticed that Astra has filed against a number of defendants, all in Delaware. Implied in the Delaware filing against Cobalt is plaintiff's desire that the case be heard in Delaware - and of course that can only happen by filing there. It is possible that Cobalt will challenge PJ in Delaware, and if they succeed, Astra will have the Florida case to fall back on.