Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/150100254/Pfizer-v-Alkem-Laboratories-pdf
Timestamp: 2017-11-22 20:40:58
Document Index: 311980953

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1391', 'Application No. 022030', '§ 355', '§ 355', '§355', '§\n271', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 505', '§ 355', '§ 285']

Pfizer v. Alkem Laboratories.pdf | Title 35 Of The United States Code | Patent
Pfizer v. Alkem Laboratories.pdf
Description: Pfizer v. Alkem Laboratories
Pfizer v. Alkem Laboratories
PFIZER INC. and UCB PHARMA GMBH, ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. ___________ ) ) ) ) )
Plaintiffs, v. ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD.,
COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Pfizer Inc. and UCB Pharma GmbH (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by their undersigned attorneys, for their Complaint against Defendant Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (“Alkem”) allege: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the
United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, arising from Alkem’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), by which Alkem seeks approval to market a generic version of Pfizer Inc.’s pharmaceutical product, Toviaz®, prior to the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 6,858,650 (“the ‘650 patent”); 7,384,980 (“the ‘980 patent”); 7,855,230 (“the ‘230 patent”); 7,985,772 (“the ‘772 patent”); and 8,338,478 (“the ‘478 patent”), which cover, inter alia, Toviaz® and/or its use. THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”) is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a place of business at 235 East 42nd Street, New York, NewYork10017. -1NEWYORK 8857268
under the laws of Germany, having a place of business at Alfred-Nobel-Strasse 10, Monheim, Germany 40789. 4. On information and belief, Alkem is a company organized and existing
under the laws of India, having a principal place of business at Devashish, Alkem House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, 400 013, India. On information and belief, Alkem is in the business of making and selling generic pharmaceutical products, which it distributes in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States. On further information and belief, Alkem has previously consented to this Court’s jurisdiction. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Alkem by virtue of, inter alia, its
presence in the Northern District of Illinois, having conducted business in the Northern District of Illinois and having derived substantial revenue therefrom, having availed itself of the rights and benefits of Illinois law, having engaged in systematic and continuous contacts with the State of Illinois, and having previously consented to personal jurisdiction in this Court. 7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and1400(b). THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 8. issued the ‘650 On February 22, 2005, the United States Patent and Trademark Office patent, entitled “Stable Salts of Novel Derivatives of 3,3-
Diphenylpropylamines.” At the time of its issue, the ‘650 patent was assigned to Schwarz Pharma AG. UCB, formerly known as Schwarz Pharma AG, currently holds title to the ‘650
-2NEWYORK 8857268
patent, a copy of which is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. Pfizer is the exclusive licensee of the ‘650 patent. 9. On June 10, 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued
issued the ‘478 patent, entitled “Derivatives of 3,3-Diphenylpropylamines.” At the time of its issue, the ‘478 patent was assigned to UCB, which currently holds title to the ‘478 patent. A copy of the ‘478 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit E. Pfizer is the exclusive licensee of the ‘478 patent.
-3NEWYORK 8857268
TOVIAZ® 13. Pfizer holds approved New Drug Application No. 022030 (“the Toviaz®
NDA”) for fesoterodine fumarate extended-release tablets, in 4 and 8 mg dosage strengths, which Pfizer sells under the trade name, Toviaz®. 14. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(1) and attendant FDA regulations, the
‘650, ‘980, ‘230, ‘772, and ‘478 patents are listed in the FDA publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” (the “Orange Book”), with respect to Toviaz®. ALKEM’S ANDA 15. On information and belief, Alkem has submitted ANDA No. 20-4827
(“Alkem’s ANDA”) to the FDA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j), seeking approval to market fesoterodine fumarate extended-release tablets in 4 and 8 mg dosage strengths (“Alkem’s Product”). 16. On information and belief, Alkem’s ANDA refers to and relies upon the
Toviaz® NDA and contains data that, according to Alkem, demonstrate the bioequivalence of Alkem’s Product and Toviaz®. 17. By letter to Pfizer and UCB, dated May 8, 2013, Alkem stated that
Alkem’s ANDA contained certifications, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV), that the ‘650, ‘980, ‘230, ‘772, and ‘478 patents are invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use, or sale of Alkem’s Product (the “Paragraph IV Certifications”). Alkem attached a memorandum to its May 8, 2013 letter, in which it alleged factual and legal bases for its Paragraph IV Certifications.
-4NEWYORK 8857268
COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,858,650 18. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations of
paragraphs 1-17 of this Complaint. 19. Alkem has infringed the ‘650 patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
271(e)(2)(A), by submitting Alkem’s ANDA, by which Alkem seeks approval from the FDA to sell, offer to sell, use, import, and/or engage in the commercial manufacture of Alkem’s Product prior to the expiration of the ‘650 patent. 20. Alkem’s sale, offer for sale, use, or commercial manufacture of Alkem’s
Product within the United States, or importation of Alkem’s Product into the United States, during the term of the ‘650 patent would infringe the ‘650 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), and/or (c). 21. Plaintiffs will be harmed substantially and irreparably if Alkem is not
award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,384,980 24. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations of
paragraphs 1-17 of this Complaint. 25. Alkem has infringed the ‘980 patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 271(e)(2)(A), by submitting Alkem’s ANDA, by which Alkem seeks approval from the FDA
-5NEWYORK 8857268
to sell, offer to sell, use, import, and/or engage in the commercial manufacture of Alkem’s Product prior to the expiration of the ‘980 patent. 26. Alkem’s sale, offer for sale, use, or commercial manufacture of Alkem’s
Product within the United States, or importation of Alkem’s Product into the United States, during the term of the ‘980 patent would infringe the ‘980 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), and/or (c). 27. Plaintiffs will be harmed substantially and irreparably if Alkem is not
award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. COUNT III INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,855,230 30. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations of
paragraphs 1-17 of this Complaint. 31. Alkem has infringed the ‘230 patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 271(e)(2)(A), by submitting Alkem’s ANDA, by which Alkem seeks approval from the FDA to sell, offer to sell, use, import, and/or engage in the commercial manufacture of Alkem’s Product prior to the expiration of the ‘230 patent. 32. Alkem’s sale, offer for sale, use, or commercial manufacture of Alkem’s
Product within the United States, or importation of Alkem’s Product into the United States, during the term of the ‘230 patent would infringe the ‘230 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), and/or (c).
-6NEWYORK 8857268
Plaintiffs will be harmed substantially and irreparably if Alkem is not
enjoined from infringing the ‘230 patent. 34. 35. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs are entitled to a finding that this case is exceptional and to an
award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. COUNT IV INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,985,772 36. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations of
paragraphs 1-17 of this Complaint. 37. Alkem has infringed the ‘772 patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 271(e)(2)(A), by submitting Alkem’s ANDA, by which Alkem seeks approval from the FDA to sell, offer to sell, use, import, and/or engage in the commercial manufacture of Alkem’s Product prior to the expiration of the ‘772 patent. 38. Alkem’s sale, offer for sale, use, or commercial manufacture of Alkem’s
Product within the United States, or importation of Alkem’s Product into the United States, during the term of the ‘772 patent would infringe the ‘772 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), and/or (c). 39. Plaintiffs will be harmed substantially and irreparably if Alkem is not
award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
-7NEWYORK 8857268
COUNT V INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,338,478 42. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations of
paragraphs 1-17 of this Complaint. 43. Alkem has infringed the ‘478 patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 271(e)(2)(A), by submitting Alkem’s ANDA, by which Alkem seeks approval from the FDA to sell, offer to sell, use, import, and/or engage in the commercial manufacture of Alkem’s Product prior to the expiration of the ‘478 patent. 44. Alkem’s sale, offer for sale, use, or commercial manufacture of Alkem’s
Product within the United States, or importation of Alkem’s Product into the United States, during the term of the ‘478 patent would infringe the ‘478 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), and/or (c). 45. Plaintiffs will be harmed substantially and irreparably if Alkem is not
award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for a judgment in their favor and against Alkem and respectfully request the following relief: A. B. C. D. A judgment that Alkem has infringed the‘650 patent; A judgment that Alkem has infringed the ‘980 patent; A judgment that Alkem has infringed the ‘230 patent; A judgment that Alkem has infringed the ‘772 patent; -8NEWYORK 8857268
A judgment that Alkem has infringed the ‘478 patent; A judgment, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B) preliminarily and
permanently enjoining Alkem, its officers, agents, servants, and employees, and those persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from manufacturing, using, offering to sell, or selling Alkem’s Product within the United States, or importing Alkem’s Product into the United States, prior to the expiration of the ‘650, ‘980, ‘230, ‘772, and ‘478 patents, including any extensions; G. A judgment ordering that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A), the
effective date of any approval of ANDA No. 20-4827, under § 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 355(j)), shall not be earlier than the expiration of the ‘650, ‘980, ‘230, ‘772, and ‘478 patents, including any extensions; H. If Alkem commercially manufactures, uses, offers to sell, or sells Alkem’s
Product within the United States, or imports Alkem’s Product into the United States, prior to the expiration of any of the ‘650, ‘980, ‘230, ‘772, and ‘478 patents, including any extensions, a judgment awarding Pfizer monetary relief, together with interest; I. § 285; J. K. Costs and expenses in this action; and Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Attorneys’ fees in this action as an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
-9NEWYORK 8857268
__/s/ David C. Van Dyke________________ David C. Van Dyke Joseph W. Barber 200 S. Michigan Ave. Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 372-4000 dvd@h2law.com jwb@h2law.com Attorneys for Pfizer Inc. and UCB Pharma GmbH
OF COUNSEL: Dimitrios T. Drivas Jeffrey J. Oelke James S. Trainor, Jr. Ryan P. Johnson WHITE & CASE LLP 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (212) 819-8200 June 24, 2013
-10NEWYORK 8857268
Documents Similar To Pfizer v. Alkem Laboratories.pdf
Richmond v. Jiawei Technology
Kugel v. Schottenstein et. al.
Lancaster Colony Corporation v. Aldon Accessories, Ltd., and Royal London, Ltd., 506 F.2d 1197, 2d Cir. (1974)
Intellectual Ventures v. Rea
The Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken Research Corporation, 487 F.2d 459, 4th Cir. (1974)
16-01-15 ACB IP Law Professors
Documents About Title 35 Of The United States Code
Herward A. Vogel and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Michael Edward Benet Jones and Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, 464 F.2d 573, 3rd Cir. (1972)