By Suresh Pillai --
Infosint
Seeks Increased Damages Award in Citalopram Suit
Following a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in October finding Forest
Laboratories and
Lundbeck A/S liable for infringement of Infosint's patent covering the antidepressant citalopram,
Infosint has now returned to the District Court seeking an increase in its damages
award. In particular, Infosint seeks additional damages and interest totaling $43 million. At the close of trial,
Infosint was awarded $15 million as a reasonable royalty (see "Biotech/Pharma
Docket," October 21, 2009).
In April 2006, Infosint filed suit against Lundbeck and Forest Labs, accusing them of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,458,973. Lundbeck and Forest Labs responded by filing a
counterclaim against Infosint for infringement of Lundbeck's U.S. Patent No. 6,403,813. At trial, a jury found that Lundbeck's process for preparing the starting material for
citalopram infringed the '973 patent, but that other processes used by Lundbeck did
not infringe that patent. Infosint then sought judgment as a matter of law that Lundbeck and Forest Labs infringed claim 24
of the '973 patent by selling citalopram manufactured through the
infringing process.
In its most recent filing, Infosint seeks an increase in the award that would reflect
interest and additional infringement. However, both Lundbeck and Forest Labs also filed post trial motions in which
the defendants argue that claim 24 of the '973 patent is invalid on grounds of
obviousness.
Court
Upholds Record $1.7 Billion Infringement Judgment
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas has upheld a record $1.7 billion award against Abbott Laboratories for Abbott's
infringement of patents belonging to Centocor Ortho Biotech Inc.
and New York University. In June 2009, the District Court found Abbott liable for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,070,775
and 7,276,239 with respect to Abbott's blockbuster arthritis drug Humira® (see "Biotech/Pharma Docket," June 30,
2009). In the wake of that decision, Abbott asked the Court to rule that the '775 was
invalid on grounds of inequitable conduct and prosecution laches. Abbott also alleged that the asserted
claims of the '775 patent were indefinite because those having ordinary skill
in the art would not understand the claim limitations as disclosed in the
patent.
The District Court disagreed with Abbott's
allegations, holding that Abbott had failed to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the '775 patent was either unenforceable or invalid. The Court left undisturbed its award,
which includes $1.17 billion in lost profits and $504 million in
royalties.
Settlement
Announced in Carbatrol® Suit
The U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey has approved a settlement agreement between Shire and Apotex Inc. over their patent dispute regarding Shire's epilepsy drug, Carbatrol®. Shire originally filed suit in 2008
following receipt of a letter from Apotex that alerted Shire to Apotex's filing
of an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the FDA seeking permission to
market and manufacture generic extended-release capsules containing carbamazepine,
the active ingredient in Carbatrol® (see "Court Report," July 27,
2008). Shire's complaint alleged that Apotex's
proposed generic would infringe upon two Shire patents, U.S. Patent Nos.
5,326,570
and 5,912,013, and sought to have Apotex enjoined from making its generic product before the
expiration of Shire's patents. Apotex responded by filing a motion seeking a declaratory judgment that
the patents were either invalid or would not be infringed.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Shire
has agreed to grant Apotex a license to both patents-in-suit and a covenant not
to sue. Apotex has agreed to
acknowledge that all claims of one of the patents are valid and that Apotex's
proposed product would have infringed the claims of that patent. Other terms and conditions of the agreement
remain confidential.
Comments