Source: https://www.robinskaplan.com/industries/health-and-life-sciences
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 19:14:55+00:00

Document:
We know the Health and Life Sciences Industry. We serve our clients with a commanding combination of courtroom mastery, business acumen, creative problem-solving and our unrivaled scientific and financial expertise. From Hatch-Waxman ANDA and 505(b)(2) litigation to health care payor disputes, we devise creative winning strategies in complex litigation, intellectual property, fraud, antitrust, and other commercial disputes. We help you safeguard your business and your bottom line by aligning legal strategy to expeditiously resolve your business needs. Our health and life sciences attorneys prepare the most effective representation possible using insights from our in-house Ph.D. economists and scientists, along with advanced project management, budgeting, and communication tools. Together, these resources married with our depth of experience give our life science and health clients a competitive advantage and allow them to focus on driving their business forward.
A judge recently ruled that Robins Kaplan client Collegium Pharmaceutical Inc. did not infringe upon two of Purdue Pharma LP’s OxyContin-related patents.
Join Jake Holdreith, Robins Kaplan, and Mark Robbins, Kodiak Consulting for an informative webinar.
We recover payments made as a result of fraud, waste and abuse by providers, and inflated prices for drugs, DME equipment, and services resulting from anticompetitive and collusive behavior.
Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.: Represented defendants UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and PacifiCare, Inc. in an antitrust lawsuit involving alleged price fixing and fraud related to prescription drug reimbursement under the federal Medicare Part D program. Plaintiff Omnicare sought damages exceeding $1 billion and permanent injunctive relief. After summary judgment motion was argued in August 2008, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims in January 2009. Published decision: Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 2d 945 (N.D. Ill. 2009). Summary judgment was subsequently affirmed.
Glen Eden Hospital v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan: Represented a private for-profit psychiatric hospital that filed an antitrust lawsuit against a health care insurer for allowing nonprofit hospitals to control the formula for setting hospital reimbursement rates. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a summary judgment ruling for the defendant. As a result of the decision, for-profit hospitals and providers of health care services throughout the United States have been able to negotiate reimbursement payment arrangements with insurers that are not subject to control by their competitors.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota et. al v. Glaxosmithkline plc, et al.: Represented Blues plans and other health insurers in litigation against drug manufacturer for overpayments made for the prescription drug Paxil and Paxil CR. After lengthy discovery and numerous pretrial motions on claims, which included allegations of antitrust violations arising from manufacturers’ use of patents to keep generics out of the market, settlement obtained in the fall of 2008.
Defended eight ERISA plan sponsors and medical insurers (including Blue Cross plans) in an antitrust action by an out-of-program mental health care provider claiming that a wide-ranging conspiracy existed among scores of insurers, plan administrators, and plan sponsors to establish agreed compensation standards that foreclosed competition from non-PPO providers. Our clients and most of the complaint were dismissed, which was upheld on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Stephen Simon v. Value Behavioral Health (United States District Court for the Central District of California, civil action SA-CV96-0711 GLT (EEx)): Represented Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts as class representative and prevailing plaintiff in consumer fraud class action against manufacturers of various physician-administered medications.
In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation: Represented Blues plans and other health insurers in litigation against drug manufacturers for overpayments made for the prescription drug BuSpar on claims that included allegations of antitrust violations arising from manufacturers’ use of patents and the FDA regulations in conjunction with the Hatch-Waxman Act to keep generics out of the market. Settlement obtained for plaintiffs.
Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, Blue Shield of California, CareFirst, Inc., Excellus Health Plan, Inc., The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, Hawaii Medical Service Association, Health Care Service Corporation, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Humana, Inc., Mutual of Omaha, Regence Blue Shield of Idaho, Wellchoice, Inc., Wellmark, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, et al.: Represented Blues plans and other health insurers against drug manufacturers for overpayments made for the prescription drug Taxol on claims that included allegations of antitrust violations arising from manufacturers’ use of patents and the FDA regulations in conjunction with the Hatch-Waxman Act to keep generics out of the market. We obtained settlement for our clients.
In re Managed Care, MDL-1334: In this litigation, a nationwide class of providers alleged that 10 of the largest managed care companies in the country engaged in a RICO fraud conspiracy to underpay doctors by delaying, denying, or reducing claims for payment. We represented one of three defendants that did not settle. We obtained summary judgment for our client, which was affirmed on appeal by the Eleventh Circuit.
Tow Distributing Inc., et al. v. BCBS Minnesota: Represented BCBS Minnesota in multiple class action lawsuits in which insured employer plans sought premium refunds out of BCBS Minnesota’s historic $469 million settlement with the tobacco companies. We guided BCBS Minnesota through contested regulatory proceedings, and gained approval from state and federal regulators for BCBS Minnesota’s plan to rebate $30 million. BCBS Minnesota then settled the class claims for $11 million, permitting it to use remaining funds to reduce the incidence of smoking, cancer, and heart disease in Minnesota.
Hoda v. Coventry Health Care, Inc.: Represented Coventry Health Care, Inc., in purported nationwide class action by health care provider alleging a systematic breach of contract in the repricing and adjudication of workers’ compensation bills submitted by participants in Coventry’s provider network. Upon Coventry’s immediately moving to dismiss the class claims and moving for summary judgment on the named plaintiff’s individual claims, the plaintiff moved to dismiss, with prejudice.
Chehalem Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Coventry Health Care, Inc.: Represent Coventry Health Care, Inc., in a purported nationwide class action alleging substantially the same claims as those asserted in Hoda v. Coventry Health Care, Inc., but filed in a different federal District Court. The Court granted Coventry's motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief on the ground that the plaintiff did not have standing to assert the claim. After discovery, the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification on its claim for damages. The Court then granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its complaint to add a plaintiff that had standing to assert a claim for injunctive relief. After additional discovery, the plaintiffs moved for class certification of the added plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief and for summary judgment. Motion for summary judgment was denied.
Counsel to Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. in a series of related cases involving six patents owned by Purdue and related entities related to oxycodone. Obtained a judgment of invalidity of the three Orange Book listed patents in Purdue Pharma LP v. Collegium Pharm. after succeeding in a motion to transfer the action from the District of Delaware to the District of Massachusetts.
Represented Amneal Pharmaceuticals in a Hatch-Waxman patent litigation concerning a drug for treating pain. Appeals in the Federal Circuit are ongoing.
Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.: Represented client in litigation to bring generic Bystolic® (nebivolol) to market. Recently settled for value for generic company.
Auxilium Pharmaceuticals v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories: Lead defense counsel for Upsher-Smith Laboratories in a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement case in which we obtained a summary judgment of non-infringement of 10 patents claiming a transdermal testosterone gel and method of treating hypogonadism before Judge Sue Robinson of the Federal District Court in Delaware. The opinion was filed on December 4, 2013. The technology related to claimed macrocyclic penetration enhancers for increasing the rate of passage of an androgen through the skin. We were successful in demonstrating to the Court that the case warranted an exception to the Court’s ordinary practice of declining to hear summary judgment motions in Hatch-Waxman cases.
Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc., 749 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014): Represented Novel Labs. Inc., now a division of Lupin Ltd., in a Hatch-Waxman patent litigation concerning a pre-colonoscopy bowel prep drug. Successfully appealed in the Federal Circuit, re-tried the case, which was appealed again, and ultimately settled.
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, et al.: Lead trial counsel defending Upsher-Smith Laboratories in a patent suit to enjoin the sale of a pharmaceutical formulation. Following a two-day bench trial on the issues of infringement, validity and enforceability of the plaintiff’s patent, the Court denied a request to temporarily enjoin the client from making and selling its products. All claims asserted against our client were subsequently invalidated during an ex parte re-examination based on the same arguments and evidence we presented during the bench trial. The invalidity of the claims was summarily affirmed on appeal to the CAFC. The district court action is No. CV05-3458 (D. Az. filed October 27, 2005). The re-examination appeal is No. 2009-1291 (Reexamination No. 90/008,068).
Representing generic client in inter partes review before the Patent and Trademark Appeal Board.
Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al.: Represented Medtronic, Inc. in a dispute with Mirowski Family Ventures’ assertion that Medtronic’s cardiac resynchronization devices infringed certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. RE38,119 and RE39,897. After a bench trial, a Delaware district court held that Mirowski Family Ventures, as the patentee, bore the burden of proving infringement and failed to meet that burden, entering a judgment of non-infringement on behalf of Medtronic. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court on the burden-of-proof issue and held that Medtronic, as the licensee, bore the burden of proving non-infringement. Medtronic filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Federal Circuit, holding that the patentee always bears the burden of proof, even where the licensor cannot counterclaim for infringement because of the existence of a license agreement. On remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of non-infringement for Medtronic, awarding Medtronic a complete victory in the case.
Fonar v. General Electric: Represented Fonar Corporation and Dr. Raymond V. Damadian in a patent infringement action against General Electric involving patents on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines. At trial the jury awarded Fonar $110.5 million. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed almost the entire award, ordering General Electric to pay $103.4 million, reported at the time to be the largest patent infringement jury verdict ever upheld on appeal (IP Worldwide). Fonar Corporation v. General Electric Co., 107 F.3d 1543 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 266 (1997). After the Supreme Court denied certiorari, General Electric paid Fonar $128 million (judgment plus interest).
United Healthcare v. American Renal Associates.: Representation of a healthcare payor in dispute over alleged scheme associated with dialysis services.
Payor v. DME Provider.: Representation of healthcare payor in arbitration of dispute with a DME provider alleging that substantial portion of claims are unsubstantiated and fail to satisfy requirements under applicable NCD and LCDs.
Humana v. Ameritox.: Representation of healthcare payor in dispute with lab over drug testing claims.
Blue Springs Internal Medicine, P.C., et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, et al.; Mirabile v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, et al.: Represented Coventry Health Care subsidiaries in two companion tag-along cases to the Managed Care Litigation MDL, brought by physicians in Kansas and Missouri, containing allegations against managed care companies that were similar to the allegations in the lead Shane case in the MDL. After denying the plaintiffs’ motions to remand the cases to state court, the district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the cases without prejudice. The plaintiffs then filed new complaints, this time alleging breach of contract, again on behalf of statewide classes of providers. Once again the district court dismissed the cases without prejudice, requiring, as a condition for refiling the cases, that the plaintiffs exhaust their administrative remedies under ERISA.
Omnicare, Inc. v. Coventry Health Care, Inc.: Represented Coventry Health Care, Inc., in arbitration with nationwide provider of pharmacy services relating to dispute over submission, adjudication, and payment of claims for prescription drugs under the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. The arbitrator found in favor of Coventry as to some claims and in favor of the claimant as to some claims. The award was confirmed on appeal to the Superior Court in California.
Rogers v. I D Design, Inc., et al.: Represented Coventry Health Care of Georgia, Inc., in action by terminated employee alleging entitlement to health insurance continuation coverage benefits under COBRA. Coventry’s motion for summary judgment was granted on the ground that the small employer exception to COBRA applied.
State of Minnesota and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota v. Philip Morris, et al.: In May 1998, we reached an historic settlement in the State of Minnesota and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota’s lawsuit against the major cigarette manufacturers after 15 weeks of trial. The case was settled for $6.13 billion on behalf of the State of Minnesota and $469 million on behalf of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota.
Defended $2 million claim against nursing registry for misappropriation of trade secrets to a verdict of $494.03, and obtained grant of nonsuit for individual defendant.
A dispute over patents has erupted over ownership of the IP surrounding the gene-editing tool CRISPR.
While trade secret protection is not new, the increased scrutiny on patent protection should push companies to consider a more holistic approach to protecting its IP.

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