By Suresh Pillai --
Novartis Denied Jury Trial in Famvir® Suit
Last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp.'s request for a jury trial in its suit against Roxane Laboratories Inc. In the lawsuit, filed in July 2008 (see "Court Report," May 18, 2008), Norvartis alleges that Roxane infringed Novartis patents covering Famvir®, a treatment for genital and oral herpes. The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,246,937, covers famciclovir, the active ingredient in Famvir®. Novartis' original filing followed Roxane's filing of an ANDA with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking regulatory approval to manufacture and market a generic version of Famvir®.
In its arguments seeking a jury trial, Novartis argued that such a ruling would allow it to consolidate this trial with its action against Teva for infringement of the same patent. The District Court, however, denied the request, ruling that because the infringement action was based solely on Roxane's ANDA filing, relief was limited solely to injunctive relief, thereby negating Novartis' right to a jury trial. On the issue of consolidation, the Court ruled that Novartis' arguments were premature, as no consolidation of the cases had occurred.
The District Court also ruled on Roxane's motion to dismiss Novartis' claim that the case was exceptional, a claim that would set the stage for the awarding of attorneys fees. Roxane argued that the "mere filing of an ANDA cannot support a finding of willful infringement," but the Court disagreed and found it premature to dismiss claims for willful infringement. The Court concluded that during the course of litigation, Novartis could prove that the ANDA filing was unjustified, thereby making a ruling on this issue at this stage of litigation premature.
Par Drops GSK from Treximet® Suit
Par Pharmaceutical, the defendant in Pozen, Inc.'s infringement suit over its migraine treatment Treximet®, has agreed to drop GlaxoSmithKline PLC from the lawsuit due to GSK's cooperation with regard to discovery and abidance to the District Court's judgment. The suit (see "Court Report," November 23, 2008) is part of a consolidated patent suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in which Pozen sued Par, Alphapharm Pty. Ltd., and Mylan Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,060,499, 6,586,458, and 7,332,183, Pozen's patents covering the migraine treatment Treximet®. Pozen filed its original suit against Par in November on the heels of Par's ANDA filing with the FDA seeing regulatory approval to make and market a generic version of Treximet®. Pozen and GSK have an agreement allowing GSK to distribute Treximet® in the United States; based on this relationship, GSK was added to the current suit when Par filed amended counterclaims addressing the agreements between GSK and Pozen.
As part of its exit, GSK has promised to both give up any affirmative claims it might have had against Par and has agreed to be bound by "any and all judgments" in the current case or in any other related or consolidated actions. GSK has also stipulated to providing "full and complete discovery" to Par and to provide necessary witnesses for trial should the witnesses be required.
Galderma Drops Patent Suit over MetroGel®
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has approved Galderma SA's voluntary dismissal of its patent infringement suit against Tolmar Inc. over the rosacea treatment Metrogel® (see "Court Report," March 8, 2009). The patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,881,726 and 7,348,317, cover "aqueous compositions containing metronidazole," the active ingredient in Metrogel®. Galderma filed the suit on March 4 following Tolmar's submission of an ANDA to the FDA seeking regulatory approval to manufacture and market a generic version of Metrogel®. In a letter sent to Galderma, Tolmar claimed that its product would not infringe upon Galderma's patents, but Galderma initially disagreed. Galderma had been seeking an injunction preventing Tolmar from marketing or manufacturing the generic version of Metrogel®, and an order requiring Tolmar to destroy all infringing products. In addition to injunctive relief, Galderma had also been seeking damages and attorneys' fees.
There is another suit in the Northern District of Texas (3:09-cv-0400). Do you know if there been a settlement, or did they just drop the CO suit?
Posted by: Bingo | May 06, 2009 at 09:46 AM