By Suresh Pillai --
Infosint Awarded $15 Million Verdict in Lexapro® Suit
A federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York has awarded Infosint $15 million as a reasonable
royalty in Infosint's patent dispute with Lundbeck A/S and Forest
Laboratories, Inc. over
the patent covering Lexapro®. The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No.
6,458,973,
is owned by Infosint and covers methods for making citalopram, an
antidepressant marketed under the trade names Celexa® and Lexapro®. In the suit, originally filed in April
2006, Infosint accused both Lundbeck and Forest Labs of infringing the '973 patent. In response, Lundebeck and Forest Labs counterclaimed for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,403,813,
owned by Lundbeck and issued four months prior to the earlier-filed '973 patent
(see "Biotech/Pharma Docket," July 7, 2009).
At trial, Lundbeck and Forest Labs failed to establish infringement of the '813 patent. Although the District Court concluded at the summary judgment stage that two claims of the '973 patent were obvious, the Court also invalidated the first claim in the '813 patent, finding that Lundback had suppressed or concealed its invention. On the remaining issues that went to the jury, the jury found that: (1) the remaining claims of the '973 patent were valid and (2) a process used by Lundbeck infringed the '973 patent.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Ceases Efforts to Market
Generic Namenda®
The U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware has signed off on a stipulation and order resolving the patent
dispute between Sun India Pharmaceuticals
and Forest Laboratories, Inc.
over alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,061,703 (see "Court Report," March 23, 2008). The patent-in-suit, owned by Forest Labs and
assigned to Germany-based Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA, covered formulations of
adamantane derivatives that were manufactured and marketed as Namenda®, an Alzheimer's
treatment. Though Sun, in its
reply to the complaint, denied infringement of the '703 patent, Sun retreated from this position in the stipulation, admitting that its filing of an Abbreviated New
Drug Application with the FDA constituted a "technical act of infringement."
The District Court's order dismissed without prejudice all claims
and counterclaims in the case. Additionally, Sun agreed to refrain from marketing or manufacturing
5-milligram or 10-milligram tablets during the life of the '703 patent unless
all asserted claims of the patent have been found to be invalid.
Court Finds Vigamox®
Patent Infringed
The U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware has ruled that Teva Pharmaceuticals infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,716,830,
Alcon Inc.'s patent
covering the active ingredient used in its antibacterial drug Vigamox®. Alcon originally sued Teva in April
2006 on the heels of Teva's filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application with
the FDA seeking permission to make and market a generic version of Vigamox®. In February 2008, the District Court found that
Teva's proposed generic included the active ingredient claimed in
the '830 patent and rejected Teva's invalidity and obviousness arguments. In the just-concluded bench trial, the Court concluded that Alcon had proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) Teva's proposed generic would infringe the '830 patent and that (2)
Teva had failed to prove that the '830 patent was invalid.
Comments