By Suresh Pillai --
Cook and W. L. Gore Prevail in Suit over
Endovascular Grafts
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed
a lower court ruling that neither Cook Inc. nor W. L. Gore & Associates
infringed Edwards Lifesciences LLC's
patents covering endovascular grafts used to treat aneurysms without open
vessel surgery. Both Edwards and
EndoGAD Research Pty Ltd. filed suit for infringement in August 2003, alleging
that products made by Cook and W. L. Gore infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,582,458,
6,613,073,
6,685,736,
and 6,689,158. The patents-in-suit are all related
to the treatment of blood vessel occlusions via non-invasive balloon
catheters. In 2007, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case on
summary judgment, having determined following its claim construction that the accused
devices did not infringe the plaintiffs' patents.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court
decision, concluding that the lower court had correctly interpreted the
claims. The Federal Circuit also
rejected Edwards' argument that, even under the lower court's claim construction,
Edwards had presented evidence of infringement sufficient to survive summary
judgment. The patents-in-suit have
already been the subject of one previous lawsuit. In January 2006, Medtronic settled its infringement suit
with Edwards for $37 million. Medtronic also entered into a non-exclusive licensing agreement with
Edwards for the manufacturing of devices covered by the patents-in-suit.
Life Technologies Files Suit against Biosearch over
Flourescent Probe Patents
Life Technologies Corp. has
filed suit against
Biosearch Technologies, Inc., alleging that
Biosearch infringed Life Technologies' patented technology covering production
of self-quenching fluorescent probes.
The five patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos.
5,538,848,
5,723,591,
5,876,930,
6,030,787,
and
6,258,569,
all cover technology related to the design of probes for real time monitoring of DNA
amplification in PCR reactions.
In its filing, Life Technologies has asked
for a declaratory judgment infringment and an
injunction that would enjoin Biosearch from continuing to create probes encompassed by the patents-in-suit.
Should the court find that Biosearch willfully infringed upon the
patents-in-suit, Life Technologies has asked that damages be trebled.
The technology that is covered by the
patents can be practiced in any instrument platform capable of executing
real-time PCR reactions.
Should
the District Court find the patents valid and infringed, such a judgment would
likely clear the way for Life Technologies to pursue licensing agreements for the
technologies with all manufacturers of real-time PCR platforms as well as all
synthesizers of real-time fluorophore/quencher probes.
Teva Files Appeal in Singulair® Infringement Suit
Last week, Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc. filed notice in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey stating its intent to appeal
the District Court's order barring Teva from marketing and manufacturing a generic
version of Singulair®,
a product made by Merck Sharpe &
Dohme Pharmaceuticals SRL
for the treatment of asthma. Merck filed suit against Teva in
April 2007, alleging that Teva had infringed Merck's patents covering
Singulair® by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA in which
Teva sought approval to make and market a generic version of Singulair® (see
"Court Report," April 15, 2007). In its complaint, Merck sought
injunctive relief that would prevent Teva from marketing the generic until
after the patent-in-suit's 2012 expiration date, a judgment of infringement, and
attorneys' fees. Merck followed up
this filing with two more complaints, alleging the same claims and seeking the
same relief, after Teva filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking permission to market
different generic formulations of the drug. In all three complaints, Merck alleges that Teva's FDA
filings infringed Merck's U.S. Patent No.
5,565,473.
On August 19, 2009, the District Court ruled in
Merck's favor, determining that Teva's proposed generic version of Singulair® would
infringe Merck's '473 patent. The Court enjoined Teva from manufacturing its generic version of Singulair®, and ordered the FDA not to
grant approval for the proposed drug until the 2012 expiration of the '473 patent.
AstraZeneca Files Motion for Summary Judgment in
Crestor® Case
With the case scheduled to go to trial in February, AstraZeneca recently filed a
motion for summary judgment seeking a determination in its favor and against eight defendant
generics manufacturers whom AstraZeneca has accused of infringing its
patents covering the cholesterol drug Crestor®. The first suit in this consolidated
litigation was filed in December 2007 (see "Court Report," December 16, 2007)
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In all of the suits,
AstraZeneca alleged that the defendants' filings of Abbreviated New Drug Applications seeking to market and manufacture generic versions of its
blockbuster drug infringed U.S. Reissue Pat. No. RE37,314,
the patent covering Crestor®. The
defendants in the suit are Apotex Inc.,
Sandoz, Inc.,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.,
Par Pharmaceutical Inc.,
Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.,
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
and Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Comments