Court Report

    By Sherri Oslick --

About Court Report:  Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases.

Eli Lilly & Company v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
2:10-cv-00647; filed May 5, 2010 in the District Court of Nevada

• Plaintiff:  Eli Lilly & Company
• Defendants:  Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Watson Pharma, Inc.

Eli Lilly and Company v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
1:10-cv-00549; filed May 3, 2010 in the Southern District of Indiana

• Plaintiff:  Eli Lilly and Company
• Defendants:  Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Watson Pharma, Inc.

The complaints in these cases are substantially identical.  Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,458,811 ("Benzothiophenes Formulations Containing Same and Methods," issued October 1, 2002), 6,797,719 (same title, issued September 28, 2004), and 6,894,064 (same title, issued May 17, 2005) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Watson's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Lilly's Evista® (raloxifene, used for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and for the reduction in risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and in postmenopausal women at high risk of invasive breast cancer).  View the Indiana complaint here.

Pieczenik v. Astellaspharma, Inc. et al.
3:10-cv-02253; filed May 5, 2010 in the District Court of New Jersey

• Plaintiff:  George Pieczenik
• Defendants:  Astellaspharma, Inc.; Canon, U.S.A. Inc.; Taiho Pharma U.S.A., Inc.; Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc.; Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma America Holdings, Inc.; Kyowa Hakko Kirin America, Inc.; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma, Inc.; Medarex, Inc.; Shionogi Pharma Sales, Inc.; Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma America, Inc.; Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Development America, Inc.; Chugai Pharma USA, LLC Corp.; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Shionogi USA Holdings, Inc.; Shionogi USA, Inc.; Shionogi Pharma, Inc.; John Does 1 Through 61

Pieczenik v. Bayer Corp. et al.
3:10-cv-02230; filed May 4, 2010 in the District Court of New Jersey

• Plaintiff:  Dr. George Pieczenik
• Defendants:  Bayer Corp.; Bayer Healthcare LLC; Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Bayer Cropscience (New Jersey) Inc.; Bayer Pharma Chemicals Inc.; Bayer Materialscience LLC; Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corp.; Boehringer Ingelheimroxane, Inc.; Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc.; Novartis Corp.; Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp.; Novartis Vaccines And Diagnostics, Inc.; Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.; Syngenta Seeds, Inc.; Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc.; Siemens Diagnostics Finance Co. LLC; Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc.; Siemens Corp.; Roche Laboratories Inc.; Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.; Roche Diagnostics Corp.; Hoffman-La Roche Inc.; Qiagen Inc.; Bracco Diagnostics Inc.; John Does 1 Through 61

The complaints in these cases are substantially identical.  Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,866,363 ("Method and Means for Sorting and Identifying Biological Information," issued February 2, 1999) based on defendants' research, commercial and licensing activities, and patent filings in the area of peptide and antibody combinatorial libraries.  View the Bayer complaint here.

Purdue Pharma L.P. et al v. Ranbaxy Inc. et al.
1:10-cv-03734; filed May 5, 2010 in the Southern District of New York

• Plaintiffs:  Purdue Pharma L.P.; P.F. Laboratories, Inc.; Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.; Rhodes Technologies
• Defendants:  Ranbaxy Inc.; Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.; Actavis Elizabeth LLC; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Mylan Inc.

Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,674,799 ("Oxycodone Hydrochloride Having Less Than 25 PPM 14-Hydroxycodeinone," issued March 9, 2010), 7,674,800 (same title, issued March 9, 2010), and 7,683,072 (same title, issued March 23, 2010) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of defendants' filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Purdue Pharma's OxyContin® (controlled release oxycodone hydrochloride, used to treat pain).  View the complaint here.

Abbott Laboratories et al v. Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.
1:10-cv-00373; filed May 4, 2010 in the District Court of Delaware

• Plaintiffs:  Abbott Laboratories; Abbott Respiratory LLC
• Defendants:  Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc. – Florida; Watson Pharma Inc.

Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,129,930 ("Methods and Sustained Release Nicotinic Acid Compositions for Treating Hyperlipidemia at Night," issued October 10, 2000), 6,406,715 ("Intermediate Release Nicotinic Acid Compositions for Treating Hyperlipidemia Having Unique Urinary Metabolite Profiles," issued June 18, 2002), 6,676,967 ("Methods for Reducing Flushing in Individuals Being Treated with Nicotinic Acid for Hyperlipidemia," issued January 13, 2004), 6,746,691 ("Intermediate Release Nicotinic Acid Compositions for Treating Hyperlipidemia Having Unique Biopharmaceutical Characteristics," issued June 8, 2004), 7,011,848 ("Hydrophobic Component Free Sustained Release Nicotinic Acid Compositions for Treating Hyperlipidemia and Related Methods Therefor," issued March 14, 2006), 6,818,229 ("Intermediate Release Nicotinic Acid Compositions for Treating Hyperlipidemia," issued November 16, 2004), 6,080,428 ("Nicotinic Acid Compositions for Treating Hyperlipidemia and Related Methods Therefor," issued June 27, 2000), and 6,469,035 ("Methods of Pretreating Hyperlipidemic Individuals with a Flush Inhibiting Agent Prior to the Start of Single Daily Dose Nicotinic Acid Therapy to Reduce Flushing Provoked by Nicotinic Acid," issued October 22, 2002) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Watson's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Abbott's Simcor® (niacin extended release / simvastatin tablets, used to treat hypercholesterolemia).  View the complaint here.

Baker v. Pfizer, Inc. et al.
2:10-cv-02331; filed May 4, 2010 in the Western District of Tennessee

• Plaintiff:  Charles R. Baker
• Defendants:  Pfizer, Inc.; Wyeth Inc.; Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, LTD.; Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc.

False marking based on defendants' marking of certain of their Axid AR® and Synanthic® products indicating that these products are covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,375,547 ("N-Methyl-N'-2-([(2-dimethylaminomethyl)-4-thiazolyl]methylthio)ethyl 2-nitro-1,1-ethenediamine," issued March 1, 1983), 3,929,821 ("5 (6)-Benzene ring substituted benzimidazole-2-carbamate derivatives," issued December 30, 1975), and 4,080,461 ("5(6)-Benzene ring substituted benzimidazole-2-carbamate derivatives having anthelmintic activity," issued March 21, 1978), all of which are expired.  View the complaint here.

Schering Corp. et al. v. Kappos
1:10-cv-00673; filed April 30, 2010 in the District Court of the District of Columbia

• Plaintiffs:  Schering Corp.; Merck & Co., Inc.
• Defendant:  David Kappos

Review and correction of the patent term adjustment calculation made by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for U.S. Patent No. 7,612,058 ("Methods for Inhibiting Sterol Absorption," issued November 3, 2009).  View the complaint here.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. et al. v. Sandoz, Inc.
1:10-cv-03571; filed April 29, 2010 in the Southern District of New York

• Plaintiffs:  Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.; Takeda Global Research and Development Center, Inc.
• Defendant:  Sandoz, Inc.

Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,329,404 ("Pharmaceutical Composition," issued December 11, 2001) 6,211,205 (same title, issued April 3, 2001), 6,303,640 (same title, issued October 16, 2001), and 7,538,125 (same title, issued May 26, 2009) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Sandoz's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Takeda's Duetact® (pioglitazone hydrochloride and glimepiride, used to improve glycemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes).  View the complaint here.

Comments

[Dan Feigelson]

Thanks for listing the Pieczenik complaint, but you didn't mention the three best parts thereof: (1) he alleges violation of the RICO statute by the defendants, asserting that they colluded to deny him royalties; (2) he twice states that Bayer has patents that are invalid under 102(e) by virtue of his own '363 patent; and (3) he's acting pro se. (I suppose if you had mentioned the first two there wouldn't have been need to mentinon the latter.) At least he didn't ask for a declaration of invalidity of those Bayer patents. It should be entertaining to see how he attempts to prove collusion. If the case actually gets to discovery.