Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/97843077/Bristol-Myers-Squibb-Company-v-Sandoz
Timestamp: 2013-12-08 13:36:51
Document Index: 771831741

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 2540', '§ 271', '§ 3104', '§ 371', '§ 371', '§ 1391', '§ 1400']

P. 1Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. SandozBristol-Myers Squibb Company v. SandozRatings: 0|Views: 206|Likes: 0Published by PriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00787-UNA: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Sandoz Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l6hc for more info.Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00787-UNA: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Sandoz Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l6hc for more info.More info:Categories:Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: PriorSmart on Jun 21, 2012Copyright:Public DomainAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Free download as PDF, TXT or read online for free from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee MoreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/97843077/Bristol-Myers-Squibb-Company-v-Sandoz02/01/2013pdftextoriginal IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,Plaintiff,v.SANDOZ INC.,Defendant.))))))))Civil Action No.______________ COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”), for its Complaint against DefendantSandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”), hereby alleges as follows:
1. This is an action for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the UnitedStates, Title 35, United States Code.
2. Plaintiff BMS is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware having a place of business at Route 206 and Province Line Road, Princeton, New Jersey08540.3. On information and belief, Defendant Sandoz is a corporation organized andexisting under the laws of the State of Colorado having a principle place of business at 506Carnegie Center, Suite 400, Princeton, New Jersey 08540. On information and belief, Sandozmanufactures and distributes bulk pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical products that are sold bySandoz (and others) in Delaware and this District, and throughout the United States.
4. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35 of the UnitedStates Code. This Court therefore has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).5. Sandoz is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District by virtue of its presenceand activities in the State of Delaware, and having maintained systematic and continuous contactswith the State of Delaware so as to reasonably allow jurisdiction to be exercised over it.6. Sandoz is registered to distribute drugs in the State of Delaware, and is in the business of making and selling generic pharmaceutical products, which it distributes in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.7. Sandoz is registered with the Delaware Board of Pharmacy, pursuant to 24 Del. C.§ 2540, as a licensed “Distributor/Manufacturer CSR” (License No. DS0131) and “Pharmacy-Wholesale” (License No. A4-0000260). Sandoz admitted as much in its Answer in Cephalon v.Sandoz, 1:12-cv-00248-SLR (D. Del. Mar. 3, 2012).8. Sandoz does business in the State of Delaware. Sandoz admitted as much in itsAnswer in Wyeth v. Sandoz, 1:08-cv-00317-JJF (D. Del. July 24, 2008).9. Sandoz has entered into contracts with and/or purchased goods or services fromcompanies located in Delaware, including at least Agilent Technologies, Inc., and LabWare, Inc.Sandoz admitted as much in its Answer in Cephalon v. Sandoz, 1:12-cv-00248-SLR (D. Del. Mar.3, 2012).10. Sandoz has regularly and recently employed Delaware counsel, such as in Valeantv. Sandoz, 1:12-cv-00536-SRF; Cephalon v. Sandoz, 1:12-cv-00248-SLR; Abbott v. Sandoz, 1:12-cv-00103-SLR; GlaxoSmithKline v. Sandoz, 1:11-cv-01284-RGA.
311. Personal jurisdiction over Sandoz is also proper because Sandoz committed thetort of patent infringement in this District pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) by filingAbbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) No. 203905 and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 3104.12. Additionally, personal jurisdiction over Sandoz is proper because it has previouslysubmitted to jurisdiction in this Court, and has availed itself of the jurisdiction of this Court byasserting counterclaims in lawsuits pending in this Court.13. Sandoz admitted or consented to jurisdiction (for purposes of litigation) and filedcounterclaims in, for example, Cephalon v. Sandoz, 1:12-cv-00248-SLR (Mar. 23, 2012); Abbottv. Sandoz, 1:12-cv-00103-SLR (Apr. 9, 2012); GlaxoSmithKline v. Sandoz, 1:11-cv-01284-RGA(Mar. 5, 2012); Pfizer v. Sandoz, 1:11-cv-01252-GMS-MPT (Mar. 8, 2012).14. Upon information and belief, Sandoz was and/or is registered as a foreigncorporation with the Secretary of State of Delaware under 8 Del. C. § 371 in order to maintain atleast the above counterclaims under 8 Del. C. § 371.15. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c), (d), and 28 U.S.C.§ 1400(b).
16. BMS is the holder of New Drug Application (“NDA”) No. 21-797, which relates totablets containing 0.5 mg and 1 mg of entecavir. On March 29, 2005, the United States Food andDrug Administration (“FDA”) approved the marketing of the tablets described in NDA No. 21-797for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus infection in adults with evidence of active viralreplication and either evidence of persistent elevations in serum aminotransferases (ALT or AST)