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.
Elan Pharma International Ltd. v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. et al.
4:09-cv-00032; filed January 22, 2009 in the Eastern District of Texas
Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,429,824 ("Use of Tyloxapol as a Nanoparticle Stabilizer and Dispersant," issued July 4, 1995) and 5,298,262 ("Use of Ionic Cloud Point Modifiers to Prevent Particle Aggregation During Sterilization," issued March 29, 1994) based on Alcon's manufacture and sale of its Azopt® product (brinzolamide ophthalmic suspension, used to treat glaucoma or ocular hypertension). View the complaint here.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Pharmaceuticals SRL v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al.
3:09-cv-00233; filed January 16, 2009 in the District Court of New Jersey
Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,565,473 ("Unsaturated Hydroxyalkylquinoline Acids as Leukotriene Antagonists," issued October 15, 1996) following Teva's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Merck's Singulair® (montelukast sodium oral granules, used to treat asthma and allergic rhinitis). View the complaint here.
Sciele Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Lupin Ltd. et al.
1:09-cv-00105; filed January 16, 2009 in the District Court of Maryland
Sciele Pharma Inc. et al. v. Lupin Ltd. et al.
1:09-cv-00037; filed January 15, 2009 in the District Court of Delaware
The complaints in these cases are substantially identical. Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,099,859 ("Controlled Release Oral Tablet Having a Unitary Core," issued August 8, 2000) and 6,866,866 ("Controlled Release Metformin Compositions," issued March 15, 2005) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Lupin's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Sciele's Fortamet® (extended release metformin hydrochloride, used to treat Type 2 diabetes). View the Delaware complaint here.
Orion Corp. v. Wockhardt USA Inc. et al.
1:09-cv-00030; filed January 15, 2009 in the District Court of Delaware
Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,446,194 ("Pharmacologically active catechol derivatives," issued August 29, 1995), 5,135,950 ("Stable Polymorphic Form of (E)-N,N-diethyl-2-cyano-3-(3,4-dihydroxy-5-nitrophenyl)acrylamide and the Process for Its Preparation," issued August 4, 1992), and 6,500,867 ("Pharmaceutical Composition Comprising Entacapone, Levodopa, and Carbidopa," issued December 31, 2002) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Wockhardt's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Orion's Stalevo® (marketed by Novartis in the U.S.) (entacapone, levodopa, and carbidopa mixture, used to treat Parkinson's disease). View the complaint here.
Warner Chilcott Laboratories Ireland Ltd. et al. v. Sandoz Inc.
2:09-cv-00228; filed January 15, 2009 in the District Court of New Jersey
Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,958,161 ("Modified Release Coated Drug Preparation," issued October 25, 2005) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Sandoz's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Warner Chilcott's Doryx® (modified release doxycycline hyclate, used for adjunctive treatment of severe acne). View the complaint here.
Is there any way you could include counsel information for each reported case, to the extent available? Thanks!
Posted by: JJR | January 26, 2009 at 08:01 AM
Hi Sherry,
In the Azopt case, I noticed another filing at the same court:
Case Number: 4:2009cv00030
Any link ups?
Regards,
SKR
Posted by: Sandeep | January 26, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Hi JJR - At the time these cases are reported - i.e. when the complaint has just been filed - the only counsel information that is available is the counsel listed on the original complaint. A link to each complaint (in pdf format) is provided at the end of each reported case, and counsel information may be viewed there. Thanks for the comment, and thanks for reading Court Report.
Posted by: Sherri Oslick | January 26, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Sandeep,
The other "filing" you noticed is not actually a filing but rather a court docketing error. Somehow the court assigned two case numbers to the same case; the entry not reported exists in the court's docket but does not actually link to case information. So in reality, there is just the one case (the 00032 case reported above). Thanks for the comment.
Sherri
Posted by: Sherri Oslick | January 26, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Sherri,
Sorry for the incorrect name in the first post.
And a thank you for the update on the numbering error.
Regards,
SKR
Posted by: Sandeep | January 26, 2009 at 10:00 PM