Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/129674051/Merck-Sharp-Dohme-et-al-v-Hetero-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-01-19 15:43:56
Document Index: 693933257

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 100', '§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§\n355', '§ 355', '§ 355', '§ 355', '§ 355', '§ 271', '§ 355', '§ 271', '§ 355', '§ 271', '§ 2201', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 2201', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 2201', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 355', '§ 271', '§ 284', 'art59']

Merck, Sharp & Dohme et. al. v. Hetero et. al. | Patent
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCase 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 1 of 67 PageID: 403837Liza M. Walsh Tricia B. O’Reilly CONNELL FOLEY LLP 85 Livingston Avenue Roseland, New Jersey 07068-1765 (973) 535-0500 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma Co. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
MERCK, SHARP & DOHME CORP., BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB PHARMA CO. Plaintiffs, v. HETERO USA INC., and HETERO LABS LIMITED UNIT-III,
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiffs Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. (“Merck”) and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma Co. (collectively, “BMS”), by their undersigned attorneys and for their Complaint against Hetero USA Inc. (“Hetero USA”) and Hetero Labs Limited Unit-III (“Hetero Labs”) (collectively, “Defendants”), allege as follows: Nature of the Action 1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
United States, Title 35, United States Code, § 100 et seq., and in particular under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e). This action relates to Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) No. 204411, which
2868636-01
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 2 of 67 PageID: 403838
of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., is a general partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business at Route 206 and Province Line Road, Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08540. 5. On information and belief, Defendant Hetero USA is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 1031 Centennial Avenue, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854. 6. On information and belief, Defendant Hetero Labs is an Indian corporation,
having a principal place of business at 7-2-A2, Hetero Corporate Industrial Estate, Sanathnagar Hyderabad 500018 Andhra Pradesh, India. 7. On information and belief, Hetero USA acts as the agent of Hetero Labs, and is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Hetero Labs.
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 3 of 67 PageID: 403839
Jurisdiction and Venue 8. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 1400(b), 2201 and 2202. 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Hetero Labs by virtue of, inter alia,
Hetero Labs’ continuous and systematic contacts with New Jersey, and its course of conduct that is designed to cause the performance of acts that will result in foreseeable harm in New Jersey. 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Hetero USA by virtue of, inter alia,
Hetero USA’s presence in New Jersey, its continuous and systematic contacts with New Jersey, and its course of conduct that is designed to cause the performance of acts that will result in foreseeable harm in New Jersey. 11. 1400(b). THE PATENTS 12. United States Patent No. 6,639,071 (“the ‘071 Patent”), entitled “Crystal Forms of Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and
(-)-6-Chloro-4-Cyclopropylethynyl-4-Trifluoromethyl-1,4-Dihydro-2H-3,1-Benzoxazin-2-One,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on October 28, 2003 to inventors Louis S. Crocker, Joseph L. Kukura, II, Andrew S. Thompson, Christine Stelmach, and Steven D. Young. The ‘071 Patent was assigned to Merck & Co., Inc., which subsequently changed the name for the assignee to Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. At all times from the issuance of the ‘071 Patent to the present, Merck or one of its predecessors in interest has been the owner of the ‘071 Patent. Pursuant to an agreement entered into between Merck and The DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Company (“DPMC”), whereas DPMC was ultimately acquired by BMS, BMS has substantial rights to the ‘071 Patent, including but not limited to, rights associated with being a licensee of the ‘071 Patent, and the right to sue for 3
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 4 of 67 PageID: 403840
infringement of the ‘071 Patent. The ‘071 Patent is listed in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (“FDA Orange Book”) for Sustiva®. A true and correct copy of the ‘071 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 13. United States Patent No. 6,939,964 (“the ‘964 Patent”), entitled “Crystal Forms of
(-)-6-Chloro-4-Cyclopropylethynyl-4-Trifluoromethyl-1,4-Dihydro-2H-3,1-Benzoxazin-2-One,” was duly and legally issued by the USPTO on September 6, 2005 to inventors Louis S. Crocker, Joseph L. Kukura, II, Andrew S. Thompson, Christine Stelmach, and Steven D. Young. The ‘964 Patent claims priority to the ‘071 Patent. The ‘964 Patent was assigned to Merck & Co., Inc., which subsequently changed the name for the assignee to Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. At all times from the issuance of the ‘964 Patent to the present, Merck or one of its predecessors in interest has been the owner of the ‘964 Patent. Pursuant to an agreement entered into between Merck and DPMC, whereas DPMC was ultimately acquired by BMS, BMS has substantial rights to the ‘964 Patent, including but not limited to, rights associated with being a licensee of the ‘964 Patent, and the right to sue for infringement of the ‘964 Patent. The ‘964 Patent is also listed in the FDA Orange Book for Sustiva®. A true and correct copy of the ‘964 Patent is attached as Exhibit B. 14. United States Patent No. 6,673,372 (“the ‘372 Patent”), entitled “Crystalline
Efavirenz,” was duly and legally issued by the USPTO on January 6, 2004 to inventors Lilian A. Radesca, Michael B. Maurin, Shelley R. Rabel, and James R. Moore. The ‘372 Patent was assigned to DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company, which subsequently changed the name for the assignee to Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma Company. At all times from the issuance of the ‘372 Patent to the present, BMS or one of its predecessors in interest has been the owner of the ‘372 Patent. The ‘372 Patent claims particular crystalline forms of efavirenz, but is not listed in the
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 5 of 67 PageID: 403841
FDA Orange Book for Sustiva®. A true and correct copy of the ‘372 Patent, including two Certificates of Correction, is attached as Exhibit C.
ACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS ACTION 15. By letter dated January 23, 2013, purporting to be a notice pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §
355(j)(2)(B)(ii) (“Notice Letter"), Defendants notified BMS and Merck (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) that Defendants had submitted ANDA No. 204411 to the FDA under section 505(j) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 355(j)) seeking approval to engage in the commercial manufacture, importation, use, and sale of 600 mg efavirenz tablets (“Defendants’ ANDA product”) as a generic version of BMS’s Sustiva® drug product. 16. Defendants’ ANDA was submitted to obtain FDA approval to engage in the
commercial manufacture, importation, use, sale, and/or importation of Defendants’ ANDA product prior to the expiration of the ‘071, ‘964, and ‘372 Patents. The ‘071 and ‘964 Patents are listed in the FDA Orange Book as being applicable to BMS’s Sustiva® drug product. 17. On information and belief, Defendants intend to engage in the commercial
manufacture, importation, use, and sale of Defendants’ ANDA product promptly upon receiving FDA approval to do so. 18. In the Notice Letter, Defendants notified Plaintiffs that their ANDA contained a
"paragraph IV" certification that, in Defendants’ opinion, the ‘071 and ‘964 Patents will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use, sale, offer to sell or importation of Defendants’ ANDA product. The Notice Letter did not provide any statement regarding the ‘372 Patent. 19. The Notice Letter also included an Offer of Confidential Access, pursuant to 21
U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(C), to certain information from ANDA No. 204411 for the sole and exclusive purpose of determining whether an infringement action referred to in § 355(j)(5)(B)(iii) can be 5
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 6 of 67 PageID: 403842
brought by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs accepted this Offer of Confidential Access on or around January 31, 2013. 20. On information and belief, based in part on the information from ANDA No.
204411 received pursuant to the Office of Confidential Access, Defendants’ ANDA product infringes one or more claims of the ‘071 and ‘964 Patents. 21. Moreover, on information and belief, based in part on the information contained
in the Notice Letter, Defendants’ ANDA product as described in ANDA No. 204411 also infringes one or more claims of the ‘372 Patent. COUNT 1 Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,639,071 22. 23. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1-21 above as if set forth herein. By filing ANDA No. 204411 under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j) for the purposes of
obtaining approval to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, sale, and/or importation of Defendants’ ANDA product prior to the expiration date of the ‘071 Patent, Defendants have committed an act of infringement of the ‘071 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) and such infringement will cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm unless enjoined by this Court. 24. On information and belief, Defendants lacked a good faith basis for alleging non-
infringement when ANDA No. 204411 was filed and when the paragraph IV certification was made. Defendants' ANDA is a wholly unjustified infringement of the ‘071 Patent. 25. On information and belief, the commercial manufacture, use, sale, and/or
importation of Defendants’ ANDA product by Defendants will infringe, induce infringement, and/or contributorily infringe one or more claims of the ‘071 Patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 7 of 67 PageID: 403843
COUNT 2 Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,939,964 26. 27. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1-25 above as if set forth herein. By filing ANDA No. 204411 under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j) for the purposes of
obtaining approval to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, sale, and/or importation of Defendants’ ANDA product prior to the expiration date of the ‘964 Patent, Defendants have committed an act of infringement of the ‘964 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) and such infringement will cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm unless enjoined by this Court. 28. On information and belief, Defendants lacked a good faith basis for alleging non-
infringement when ANDA No. 204411 was filed and when the paragraph IV certification was made. Defendants' ANDA is a wholly unjustified infringement of the ‘964 Patent. 29. On information and belief, the commercial manufacture, use, sale, and/or
importation of Defendants’ ANDA product by Defendants will infringe, induce infringement, and/or contributorily infringe one or more claims of the ‘964 Patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. COUNT 3 Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,673,372 30. 31. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1-29 above as if set forth herein. By filing ANDA No. 204411 under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j) for the purposes of
obtaining approval to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, sale, and/or importation of Defendants’ ANDA product prior to the expiration date of the ‘372 Patent, Defendants have committed an act of infringement of the ‘372 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) and such infringement will cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm unless enjoined by this Court.
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 8 of 67 PageID: 403844
On information and belief, Defendants' ANDA is a wholly unjustified
infringement of the ‘372 Patent. 33. On information and belief, the commercial manufacture, use, sale, and/or
importation of Defendants’ ANDA product by Defendants will infringe, induce infringement, and/or contributorily infringe one or more claims of the ‘372 Patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. COUNT 4 Declaratory Judgment of Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,639,071 34. 35. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1-33 above as if set forth herein. This claim arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202,
based upon an actual controversy between the parties. Defendants have taken immediate and active steps to obtain FDA permission to sell in the United States and, after obtaining FDA permission, to commence the sale in the United States of Defendants’ ANDA product before the expiration date of the ‘071 Patent. There is a real and actual controversy between the parties with respect to Defendants’ activities and infringement of the ‘071 Patent. 36. The manufacture and/or sale of Defendants’ ANDA product by Defendants during
the term of the ‘071 Patent will constitute patent infringement of the ‘071 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and/or (b). 37. On information and belief, by seeking FDA approval for Defendants’ ANDA
product as described in ANDA No. 204411, Defendants intend to import into the United States and/or sell, offer to sell, and/or use within the United States, all for purposes not exempt under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), Defendants’ ANDA product, which would infringe the ‘071Patent. 38. Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not enjoined from
infringing the ‘071 Patent.
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 9 of 67 PageID: 403845
COUNT 5 Declaratory Judgment of Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,939,964 39. 40. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1-38 above as if set forth herein. This claim arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202,
based upon an actual controversy between the parties. Defendants have taken immediate and active steps to obtain FDA permission to sell in the United States and, after obtaining FDA permission, to commence the sale in the United States of Defendants’ ANDA product prior to the expiration date of the ‘964 Patent. There is a real and actual controversy between the parties with respect to Defendants’ activities and infringement of the ‘964 Patent. 41. The manufacture and sale of Defendants’ ANDA product by Defendants during
the term of the ‘964 Patent will constitute patent infringement of the ‘964 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and/or (b). 42. On information and belief, by seeking FDA approval for Defendants’ ANDA
product as described in ANDA No. 204411, Defendants intend to import into the United States and/or sell, offer to sell, and/or use within the United States, all for purposes not exempt under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), Defendants’ ANDA product, which would infringe the ‘964 Patent. 43. Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not enjoined from
infringing the ‘964 Patent. COUNT 6 Declaratory Judgment of Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,673,372 44. 45. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1-43 above as if set forth herein. This claim arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202,
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 10 of 67 PageID: 403846
permission, to commence the sale in the United States of Defendants’ ANDA product prior to the expiration date of the ‘372 Patent. There is a real and actual controversy between the parties with respect to Defendants’ activities and infringement of the ‘372 Patent. 46. The manufacture and sale of Defendants’ ANDA product by Defendants during
the term of the ‘372 Patent will constitute patent infringement of the ‘372 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and/or (b). 47. On information and belief, by seeking FDA approval for Defendants’ ANDA
product as described in ANDA No. 204411, Defendants intend to import into the United States and/or sell, offer to sell, and/or use within the United States, all for purposes not exempt under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), Defendants’ ANDA product, which would infringe the ‘372 Patent. 48. Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not enjoined from
infringing the ‘372 Patent. Relief Requested WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for the following relief: (a) A judgment that Defendants have infringed one or more claims of the
‘071, ‘964, and ‘372 Patents by the filing of ANDA No. 204411; (b) A judgment ordering that the effective date of any approval of
Defendants’ ANDA No. 204411 under Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.§ 355(j)) be a date that is not earlier than the expiration date of the ‘071, ‘964, and ‘372 Patents, or any later date of exclusivity to which BMS or Merck are or become entitled; (c) A declaration and adjudication that Defendants will infringe the ‘071,
‘964, and ‘372 Patents by their threatened acts of manufacture, importation, sale, offer for sale, and/or use of products covered by said patent prior to the expiration date of said patent;
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 11 of 67 PageID: 403847
A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and their officers, agents,
servants, employees, and privies from infringing the ‘071, ‘964, and ‘372 Patents; (e) Damages under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(C), which this Court should treble
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, if Defendants infringe the ‘071, ‘964, or ‘372 Patents by engaging in the commercial manufacture, importation, use, sale, offer to sell, or import its ANDA product in/into the United States prior to the expiration of the ‘071, ‘964, or ‘372 Patents or the expiration of any other exclusivity to which BMS or Merck become entitled; (f) A judgment that this is an exceptional case and that Plaintiffs are entitled
By: s/Liza M. Walsh Liza M. Walsh Tricia B. O’Reilly CONNELL FOLEY LLP 85 Livingston Avenue Roseland, New Jersey 07068-1765 (973) 535-0500 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma Co.
OF COUNSEL: Paul H. Berghoff James C. Gumina Sean M. Sullivan Andrew W. Williams Kurt W. Rhode Sydney R. Kokjohn John M. Schafer McDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP 300 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 11
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 12 of 67 PageID: 403848
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO L. CIV. R. 11.2 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 11.2, I hereby certify that the matter in controversy is the subject of the following pending actions:
MERCK, SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; and TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., Case No. 10-CV-1851(RJS) (AJP) (Southern District of New York); and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY; and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB PHARMA CO. v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; and MATRIX LABORATORIES LTD. v. MERCK & CO., INC.; and MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., C.A. No. 09-651 (LPS) (District of Delaware).
RULE 201.1 CERTIFICATION We hereby certify that the above-captioned matter is not subject to compulsory arbitration in that the plaintiffs seek, inter alia, injunctive relief.
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 13 of 67 PageID: 403849
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 14 of 67 PageID: 403850
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 15 of 67 PageID: 403851
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 16 of 67 PageID: 403852
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 17 of 67 PageID: 403853
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 18 of 67 PageID: 403854
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 19 of 67 PageID: 403855
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 20 of 67 PageID: 403856
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 21 of 67 PageID: 403857
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 22 of 67 PageID: 403858
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 23 of 67 PageID: 403859
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 24 of 67 PageID: 403860
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 25 of 67 PageID: 403861
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 26 of 67 PageID: 403862
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 27 of 67 PageID: 403863
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 28 of 67 PageID: 403864
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 29 of 67 PageID: 403865
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 30 of 67 PageID: 403866
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 31 of 67 PageID: 403867
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 32 of 67 PageID: 403868
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 33 of 67 PageID: 403869
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 34 of 67 PageID: 403870
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 35 of 67 PageID: 403871
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 36 of 67 PageID: 403872
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 37 of 67 PageID: 403873
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 38 of 67 PageID: 403874
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 39 of 67 PageID: 403875
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 40 of 67 PageID: 403876
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 41 of 67 PageID: 403877
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 42 of 67 PageID: 403878
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 43 of 67 PageID: 403879
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 44 of 67 PageID: 403880
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 45 of 67 PageID: 403881
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 46 of 67 PageID: 403882
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 47 of 67 PageID: 403883
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 48 of 67 PageID: 403884
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 49 of 67 PageID: 403885
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 50 of 67 PageID: 403886
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 51 of 67 PageID: 403887
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 52 of 67 PageID: 403888
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 53 of 67 PageID: 403889
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 54 of 67 PageID: 403890
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 55 of 67 PageID: 403891
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 56 of 67 PageID: 403892
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 57 of 67 PageID: 403893
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 58 of 67 PageID: 403894
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 59 of 67 PageID: 403895
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 60 of 67 PageID: 403896
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 61 of 67 PageID: 403897
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 62 of 67 PageID: 403898
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 63 of 67 PageID: 403899
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 64 of 67 PageID: 403900
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 65 of 67 PageID: 403901
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 66 of 67 PageID: 403902
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 17465 Filed 03/07/13 Page 67 of 67 PageID: 403903
Merck, Sharp & Dohme et. al. v. Hetero et. al. by PriorSmart59 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-01402-KM-MAH: Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. et. al. v. Hetero USA Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of N...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-01402-KM-MAH: Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. et. al. v. Hetero USA Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the Hon. Kevin McNulty presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7Ne for more info.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedMerck, Sharp & Dohme Et. Al. v. Cipla Et. Al.by PatentBlastCephalon v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical et. al.by PriorSmartCephalon v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories et. al.by PriorSmartCephalon v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Et. Al.by PatentBlastCephalon v. Hospiraby PriorSmartDepomed v. Actavis Elizabeth et. al.by PriorSmartLyne Laboratories Et. Al. v. Par Pharmaceutical Et. Al.by PatentBlastCephalon v. Actavis Laboratories FL et. al.by PriorSmartFresenius Kabi v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories et. al.by PriorSmartAmarin Pharma et. al. v. Roxane Laboratoriesby PriorSmartLyne Laboratories et. al. v. Roxane Laboratoriesby PriorSmartAlza v. Pack Pharmaceuticalsby PriorSmartGlaxo v. Apotex.docxby orionsrulerCephalon v. Hetero Labs et. al.by PriorSmartAmarin Pharma et. al. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories et. al.by PriorSmartCumberland Pharmaceuticals v. Akornby PatentBlastVRX v AGN Relistorby iphawkShire Et. Al. v. Apotex Et. Al.by PatentBlastCephalon v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Et. Al.by PatentBlastKissei Pharmaceutical Et. Al. v. Sandozby PatentBlast12-10083-RGSby barzilay123Fresenius Medical Care Holdings v. Nostrum Laboratoriesby PriorSmartValeant v Actavisby iphawkJanssen Pharmaceuticals Et. Al. v. Actavis Elizabeth Et. Al.by PatentBlastCephalon v. Sandozby PriorSmartCelgene et. al. v. Fresenius Kabiby PriorSmartAllergan v. Hi-Tech Pharmacalby PriorSmartCadence Pharmaceuticals et. al. v. Fresenius Kabiby PatentBlastSimilar to Merck, Sharp & Dohme et. al. v. Hetero et. al.Merck, Sharp & Dohme Et. Al. v. Cipla Et. Al.Cephalon v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical et. al.Cephalon v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories et. al.Cephalon v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Et. Al.Cephalon v. HospiraDepomed v. Actavis Elizabeth et. al.Lyne Laboratories Et. Al. v. Par Pharmaceutical Et. Al.Cephalon v. Actavis Laboratories FL et. al.Fresenius Kabi v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories et. al.Amarin Pharma et. al. v. Roxane LaboratoriesLyne Laboratories et. al. v. Roxane LaboratoriesAlza v. Pack PharmaceuticalsGlaxo v. Apotex.docxCephalon v. Hetero Labs et. al.Amarin Pharma et. al. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories et. al.Cumberland Pharmaceuticals v. AkornVRX v AGN RelistorShire Et. Al. v. Apotex Et. Al.Cephalon v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Et. Al.Kissei Pharmaceutical Et. Al. v. Sandoz12-10083-RGSFresenius Medical Care Holdings v. Nostrum LaboratoriesValeant v ActavisJanssen Pharmaceuticals Et. Al. v. Actavis Elizabeth Et. Al.Cephalon v. SandozCelgene et. al. v. Fresenius KabiAllergan v. Hi-Tech PharmacalCadence Pharmaceuticals et. al. v. Fresenius KabiMedicines Company v. Accord Healthcare et. al.Merck & CIE et. al.Merck, Sharp & Dohme et. al. v. Hetero et. al.