Source: https://www.windelsmarx.com/practice_detail.cfm?id=72
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:22:34+00:00

Document:
Our world-class Intellectual Property Hatch-Waxman Act Practice Group has been at the forefront of many of the most significant brand vs. generic battles in the pharmaceutical industry.
We regularly and successfully handle trials and appeals on behalf of generic pharmaceutical companies. We are particularly noted for our involvement in Hatch-Waxman litigation and have litigated Hatch-Waxman cases involving small molecules, polymorphs, hydrates, and complex biological products in District Courts around the country, as well as at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
Our attorneys’ trial advocacy skills are backed by technical degrees in such fields as chemistry, biochemistry, immunology, molecular biology, genetics, mathematics, and electrical, mechanical, aerospace, chemical and biomedical engineering. Many Group members have also worked in the pharmaceutical, chemical, or biotechnology industries in positions ranging from API and formulation development to General Counsel to marketing.
While we aim for success in litigation, we understand that our clients view litigation as a means to achieve a business goal — generally, early market entry for a generic product. We are therefore proactive in working with our clients to obtain early market entry agreements. We have negotiated numerous agreements of this type, some arising out of litigation and some without any litigation.
We also have extensive experience in patent counseling, and preparing non-infringement, invalidity, and freedom to operate opinions and paragraph IV notice letters under the Hatch-Waxman Act. We have vast technical expertise in evaluating patent portfolios to develop novel invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement defenses. We frequently assist clients with designing around formulation, process, and polymorph patents. We have considerable experience in challenging the validity of patents in an inter partes review at the USPTO.
Our attorneys are also intimately familiar with and keep abreast of the rapidly changing FDA regulations and case law concerning 180-day exclusivity and the forfeiture of that exclusivity. Where necessary, we have litigated exclusivity disputes for our clients. We have also assisted our clients with license agreements, product development agreements, joint venture agreements, and supply agreements concerning new chemical entities, finished dosage forms, bulk API, intermediates and medical devices.
We recognize that our clients’ success turns on early market entry at a reasonable legal cost. To that end, we work with our clients to design non-infringing APIs, manufacturing processes, and finished dosage formulations. We are also sensitive to budgetary concerns and know how to minimize the cost of patent litigation without sacrificing quality.
Omeprazole OTC: Dexcel Pharma Technologies Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., 2-15-cv-08042 (D.N.J.), consolidated with 2-15-cv-08017 (D.N.J.); brand consented to judgment of non-infringement after our cross examination of their expert (August 6, 2018).
Mucinex D® (Guaifenesin and Pseudoephedrine): Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., 1-15-cv-04524 (D.N.J.); successful trial verdict of non-infringement (August 22, 2017); affirmed on appeal.
Copaxone® (Glatiramer Acetate) 40 mg/mL: Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., 1-14-cv-01278 (D. Del.); successful trial verdict of invalidity (Jan. 31, 2017); affirmed on appeal.
Nasonex® (Mometasone Furoate): Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 1:15-cv-00250 (D. Del.); successful trial verdict of non-infringement (Jan. 30, 2017); affirmed on appeal.
Vimovo® (Esomeprazole/Naproxen): Horizon Pharma, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., 11-2317, 15-3324 (D.N.J.); summary judgment of non-infringement of lead patent granted (May 12, 2016); summary judgment of invalidity granted for follow-on patent (November 19, 2018).
Oxycontin® (Oxycodone): Purdue Pharma LP v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 13-cv-3372 (S.D.N.Y.); successful trial verdict of invalidity (April 8, 2015); affirmed on appeal.
Diprivan® (Propofol): Fresenius Kabi USA LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., 1:13-cv-00925 (D. Del.); successful trial verdict of non-infringement (August 25, 2014) (no appeal).
Zometa®/Reclast® (Zoledronic Acid): In re: Certain Zoledronic Acid Cases (Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.), Consolidated Civil Action No. 12-3967 (D. N. J.); successfully opposed preliminary injunction motion; client launched at-risk; settled on favorable terms.
Boniva® (Ibandronate tablets): Hoffmann La-Roche, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., (D.N.J. 3:07-cv-4516, 3:08-cv-4055, and 3:10-cv-5623); patent held invalid sub. nom., Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc. (consolidated), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64382 (D.N.J. May 7, 2012) and 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141669 (D.N.J. Oct. 12, 2012), affirmed, 748 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014); client launched at-risk; summary judgment granted; affirmed on appeal.
Accolate® (Zafirlukast): AstraZeneca UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., 3:08-cv-03237 (D.N.J.), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120706 (D.N.J. Nov. 15, 2010); summary judgment granted; client launched at-risk; case settled on appeal.
Nexium® (Esomeprazole Mg): AstraZeneca AB v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., 3:05-cv-05553 (D.N.J.); case settled Jan. 2011; In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation, 1:12-md-02409-WGY (D. Mass.), case settled on favorable terms.
Prilosec® OTC (Omeprazole Mg): AstraZeneca AB, v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., 07-cv-6790 (S.D.N.Y.); summary judgment granted (March 10, 2009); affirmed on appeal.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.