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.
Sandoz Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG et al.
1:09-cv-01444; filed July 31, 2009 in the District Court of the District of Columbia
• Plaintiff: Sandoz Inc.
• Defendants: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH
Declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability, and non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,429,602 ("Treating Conjunctivitis by Topically Administering An Epinastine Solution to the Conjunctiva," issued September 30, 2008), licensed to Allergan, based on Sandoz's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Allergan's Elestat® (epinastine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution, used to prevent itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis). View the complaint here.
Genzyme Corp. v. Roxane Laboratories Inc.
1:09-cv-00567; filed July 31, 2009 in the District Court of Delaware
Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,602,116 ("Method for Treating and Preventing Secondary Hyperparathyroidism," issued February 11, 1997) following Roxane's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of plaintiffs' Hectorol® (doxercalciferol, used to treat secondary hyperparathyroidism in patients with chronic kidney disease). View the complaint here.
Paddock Laboratories, Inc. v. Ethypharm S.A.
3:09-cv-03779; filed July 30, 2009 in the District Court of New Jersey
Declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,101,574 ("Pharmaceutical Composition Containing Fenofibrate and the Preparation Method," issued September 5, 2006), licensed to Oscient, based on Paddock's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Oscient's Antara® (fenofibrate, used to treat hypercholesterolemia). View the complaint here.
If you look at Graham v John Deere which KSR acknowledges is the leading authiruty on invnetive step you will find that there are certain preparations for making the decision, but thereafter a decision is taken according to the evidence. If the evidence is that a step was not obvious to try,and is uncontradicted, then the court must decide accordingly. A failure of due process here, if Judge Newman's assessment is correct on the facts.
Posted by: Paul Cole | August 10, 2009 at 08:07 AM