Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/184549419/Millennium-Pharmaceuticals-v-Apotex-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-07-21 04:49:53
Document Index: 396908527

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1391', 'Application No. 21', '§ 355', '§ 271', '§ 285']

Millennium Pharmaceuticals v. Apotex et. al. | Generic Drug | Patent Infringement
Millennium Pharmaceuticals v. Apotex et. al.Uploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsGeneric DrugPatent InfringementPharmaceutical DrugFood And Drug AdministrationPatentRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Apotex Corp. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, no ...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Apotex Corp. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9v7 for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MILLENNIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Plaintiff, v. APOTEX CORP. and APOTEX INC., Defendants. Civil Action No. 13-8240
COMPLAINT Plaintiff Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., by its attorneys, alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United
States, Title 35, United States Code, that arises out of the filing by Defendant Apotex Inc. of Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) No. 205533 with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of VELCADE® prior to the expiration of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,713,446 and 6,958,319. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Millennium”) is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 40 Landsdowne Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Millennium is engaged in the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling pharmaceutical drug products, particularly for use in the therapeutic area of oncology.
ActiveUS 117784233v.2
Upon information and belief, Defendant Apotex Corp. is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 2400 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 400, Weston, Florida 33326. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Apotex Inc. is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of Canada, having a principal place of business at 150 Signet Drive, Toronto, Ontario, M9L 1T9, Canada. Upon information and belief, Apotex Inc. develops and manufactures generic pharmaceutical products throughout the United States, including in this judicial district. 5. Upon information and belief, Apotex Inc. is in the business of manufacturing drug
products for the purpose of sale within the United States, including in the Northern District of Illinois. 6. Upon information and belief, Apotex Corp. serves as Apotex Inc.’s United States
sales agent and distributor and sells and offers for sale Apotex Inc.’s drug products throughout the United States, including in the Northern District of Illinois. 7. Upon information and belief, Apotex Corp. and Apotex Inc. (collectively,
“Apotex”) are two arms of the same business group, operate in concert with each other, and enter into agreements with each other that are nearer than arm’s length. 8. Upon information and belief, following FDA approval of ANDA No. 205533,
Apotex will make, use, offer to sell, and/or sell the generic products that are the subject of ANDA No. 205533 throughout the United States, and/or import such generic products into the United States.
-2ActiveUS 117784233v.2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States of America and this
Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202. 10. 11. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). The Court has personal jurisdiction over Apotex Corp. because, among other
things, upon information and belief, Apotex Corp. conducts business within this District; it derives substantial revenue from services or things used or consumed in this District; and it is in the business of marketing and selling drug products throughout the United States, including in the Northern District of Illinois. 12. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Apotex Inc. because, among other things,
Apotex Inc. markets and sells generic drugs throughout the United States and within this judicial District and therefore purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the Northern District of Illinois. Further, in its “paragraph iv” notice correspondence, dated October 2, 2013, Apotex, Inc. identified its agent for service of process for purposes of patent infringement as being located in this Judicial District. In addition, upon information and belief, Apotex Inc. has previously availed itself of this forum for the purpose of litigating its patent infringement disputes. For example, on May 10, 2013, Apotex Inc. filed a counterclaim seeking four counts of declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity in Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC and Pfizer Asia-Pacific Ptd. Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc. and Apotex Corp., No. 1:13-cv02034 (N.D. Ill.). BACKGROUND 13. United States Patent No. 6,713,446 (“the ’446 patent”), entitled “Formulation of
Boronic Acid Compounds” (Exhibit A hereto), was duly and legally issued on March 30, 2004. -3ActiveUS 117784233v.2
The ’446 patent, which is owned by the United States of America as Represented by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, will expire on January 25, 2022. 14. United States Patent No. 6,958,319 (“the ’319 patent”), entitled “Formulation of
Boronic Acid Compounds” (Exhibit B hereto), was duly and legally issued on October 25, 2005. The ’319 patent, which is owned by the United States of America as Represented by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, will expire on January 25, 2022. 15. Millennium has had an exclusive license to the ’446 and ’319 patents since
December 2, 2002, by virtue of an exclusive worldwide license agreement for the research, development, and manufacture of MLN341 (bortezomib) for distribution, sale and use in oncology disease states. Pursuant to this license, Millennium has the right to bring suit in its own name, at its own expense, and on its own behalf for infringement of the ’446 and ’319 patents. 16. VELCADE® (bortezomib) is a proteasome inhibitor, for intravenous or
subcutaneous administration, approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma and patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have received at least one prior therapy. 17. Millennium sells VELCADE® in the United States pursuant to New Drug
Application No. 21-602 which was approved by the FDA in 2003 and pursuant to several subsequent supplemental new drug applications for additional indications and a new route of administration which have also been approved by the FDA. 18. VELCADE®, or its use, is covered by one or more claims of the ’446 and ’319
patents, which have been listed in connection with VELCADE® in the FDA’s publication, Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, referred to as the “Orange Book.” -4ActiveUS 117784233v.2
By letter dated October 2, 2013, and received October 3, 2013 (the “Notice
Letter”), Apotex notified Millennium that it had submitted to the FDA ANDA No. 205533 for Bortezomib for Injection, 3.5 mg/vial, a generic version of VELCADE® (“the Apotex ANDA Product”). 20. In the Notice Letter, Apotex stated that its ANDA included certifications pursuant
to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) with respect to the ’446 and ’319 patents and alleged that the ’446 and ’319 patents are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale of the Apotex ANDA Product. 21. This action is being commenced before the expiration of forty-five days from the
date of Plaintiff’s receipt of the Notice Letter. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,713,446 22. herein. 23. Apotex’s submission of ANDA No. 205533 for the purpose of obtaining approval Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs 1 – 21 as if fully set forth
to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale of the Apotex ANDA Product before the expiration of the ’446 patent is an act of infringement of the ’446 patent. 24. The commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale and/or importation of the
Apotex ANDA Product would infringe one or more claims of the ’446 patent. 25. FDA. 26. Upon information and belief, use of the Apotex ANDA Product in accordance Apotex had knowledge of the ’446 patent when it submitted its ANDA to the
with and as directed by Apotex’s proposed labeling for that product would infringe one or more claims of the ’446 patent. -5ActiveUS 117784233v.2
Upon information and belief, Apotex intends to engage in the manufacture, use,
offer for sale, sale, and/or importation of the Apotex ANDA Product with its proposed labeling immediately and imminently upon approval of ANDA No. 205533. 28. Upon information and belief, Apotex will actively induce infringement of the
’446 patent when its ANDA is approved, and plans and intends to, and will do so immediately and imminently upon approval. 29. Upon information and belief, Apotex acted without a reasonable basis for
believing that it would not be liable for infringing the ’446 patent and/or actively inducing infringement of the ’446 patent. 30. Unless Apotex is enjoined from infringing the ’446 patent and/or actively
inducing infringement of the ’446 patent, Millennium will suffer irreparable injury. Millennium has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,958,319 31. herein. 32. Apotex’s submission of ANDA No. 205533 for the purpose of obtaining approval Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs 1 – 30 as if fully set forth
to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale of the Apotex ANDA Product before the expiration of the ’319 patent is an act of infringement of the ’319 patent. 33. The commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale and/or importation of the
Apotex ANDA Product would infringe one or more claims of the ’319 patent. 34. FDA. -6ActiveUS 117784233v.2
Apotex had knowledge of the ’319 patent when it submitted its ANDA to the
Upon information and belief, use of the Apotex ANDA Product in accordance
with and as directed by Apotex’s proposed labeling for that product would infringe one or more claims of the ’319 patent. 36. Upon information and belief, Apotex intends to engage in the manufacture, use,
offer for sale, sale, and/or importation of the Apotex ANDA Product with its proposed labeling immediately and imminently upon approval of ANDA No. 205533. 37. Upon information and belief, Apotex will actively induce infringement of the
’319 patent when its ANDA is approved, and plans and intends to, and will do so immediately and imminently upon approval. 38. Upon information and belief, Apotex acted without a reasonable basis for
believing that it would not be liable for infringing the ’319 patent and/or actively inducing infringement of the ’319 patent. 39. Unless Apotex is enjoined from infringing the ’319 patent and/or actively
inducing infringement of the ’319 patent, Millennium will suffer irreparable injury. Millennium has no adequate remedy at law. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant the following relief: (a) A judgment that Apotex’s submission of ANDA No. 205533 was an act of
infringement of the ’446 and ’319 patents, and that Apotex’s manufacture, use, offer to sell, sale, or importation of the Apotex ANDA Product prior to the expiration of the ’446 and ’319 patents, will infringe and/or actively induce infringement of the ’446 and ’319 patents;
-7ActiveUS 117784233v.2
An Order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A) providing that the effective date of
any FDA approval of Apotex’s ANDA No. 205533, or any product or compound that infringes the ’446 and ’319 patents, shall not be earlier than the expiration of the ’446 and ’319 patents; (c) An Order permanently enjoining Apotex, and its affiliates and subsidiaries, and
each of their officers, agents, servants and employees, from making, having made, using, offering to sell, selling, marketing, distributing, or importing the Apotex ANDA Product, or any product or compound that infringes the ’446 and ’319 patents, or inducing the infringement of the ’446 and ’319 patents until after the expiration of the ’446 and ’319 patents; (d) A declaration that this is an exceptional case and an award of attorneys’ fees to
Plaintiff pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 285 and 271(e)(4), together with its reasonable costs; and (e) Such further and other relief as this Court deems proper and just. Respectfully submitted by, MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP s/Kirsten L. Thomson Kirsten L. Thomson (ID No. 6293943) (thomson@mbhb.com) Daniel A. Boehnen (ID No. 0242519) (boehnen@mbhb.com) McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP 300 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Tel.: (312) 913-0001 Fax: (312) 913-0002 Attorneys for Plaintiff Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Robert M. Galvin WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 (650) 858-6000 -8ActiveUS 117784233v.2
Date: November 15, 2013 OF COUNSEL:
William F. Lee Lisa J. Pirozzolo Emily R. Whelan WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) 526-6000
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Millennium Pharmaceuticals v. Apotex et. al.Skip carouselMillennium Pharmaceuticals v. Apotex et. al.Warner Chilcott Company et. al. v. Apotex et. al.Understanding the Difference Between Generic Drugs and Brand Name Drugsezra power point original 0Abhishek Kumar Singh, The 21-Year-old Millionaire in Pharmaceuticals IndustryCompulsory License-Compromise or Necessity(Legal Era) in IndiaIP-13-563_EN.pdfProcurementwho-edm-par-99-5Etagz v. Thrust PublishingANDA CHECKLIST Q4 2013 (2).pdfCivix-DDI v. LoopNetAdvanced Processor Technologies v. XilinxKowa Company Et. Al. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals Et. Al.Adrain v. Sony Computer Entertainment America et. al.commil briefPB&J Software v. DechoJ.S.T. Mfg. v. DellPB&J Software v. EvaultPJC Logistics v. ATX GroupPB&J Software v. AcronisAdaptix v. Blackberry Limited, BlackberryCeats v. Zillow247Delaware Radio Technologies LLC et. al.Delaware Radio Technologies et. al. v. Fuji Heavy Industries et. al.Delaware Radio Technologies LLC et. al.Delaware Radio Technologies LLC et. al.AaaData Proection ActDocuments About Generic DrugSkip carouselAll Costs, No BenefitsAlza et. al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals et. al.ThailandAlza et. al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals et. al.Investing For LifePrice Watch Trends in Retail Prices of Specialty Prescription Drugs 2006 to 2013 NovFree Trade Agreement Between the USA and Thailand Threatens Access to HIV/AIDS TreatmentTRIPS and Public HealthJanssen Pharmaceuticals v. Glenmark Generics et. al.Ferring v. Apotex et. al.Thailandftc_ar_2008.pdfAll Costs, No BenefitsPatent InjusticeJanssen Products et. al. v. Lupin et. al.Sigmapharm Inc v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co, 3rd Cir. (2011)Drug Companies vs. BrazilGlaxoSmithKline v. Mylan et. al.Eye on the BallDrug Companies vs. BrazilInvesting For LifeCEI Planet - May-June 2011All Costs, No BenefitsEli Lilly And Company v. Glenmark GenericsTibotec et. al. v. Lupin et. al.Novartis Pharmaceuticals et. al. v. Mylan et. al.Robbing the Poor to Pay the Rich? How the United States keeps medicines from the world’s poorestDare to LeadMake Vital Medicines Available for Poor PeopleGeneric Competition, Price and Access to MedicinesMore From PriorSmartSkip carouselLike kind card game (US patent 6193235)Like kind money board table game (US patent 6186505)Intelligent user interface including a touch sensor device (US patent 8288952)User interface with proximity sensing (US patent 8035623)Wine cellar alarm system (US patent 8710985)Cell regulatory genes, encoded products, and uses related thereto (US patent 7030227)Multicasting method and apparatus (US patent 6434622)Method and apparatus for retrieving data from a network using linked location identifiers (US patent 6226655)Casino bonus game using player strategy (US patent 6645071)High-speed serial linking device with de-emphasis function and the method thereof (US patent 7313187)Casing spacer (US patent 6736166)Advance Products & Systems v. CCI Piping SystemsModern Telecom Systems LLCTracBeam v. AppleRichmond v. Creative IndustriesSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.VIA Technologies et. al. v. ASUS Computer International et. al.Perrie v. PerrieEckart v. Silberline ManufacturingSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.Kenzinc v. imblowingup et. al.Sun Zapper v. Devroy et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiTracBeam v. T-Mobile et. al.ATEN International v. Uniclass Technology et. al.Mcs Industries v. Hds TradingDok Solution v. FKA Distributung et. al.GRQ Investment Management v. Financial Engines et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Konami Digital Entertainment