Quantcast Eisai Defeats Dr. Reddy's And Teva In Aciphex Patent Suit
Search by tag or site Login to my blog ? Start my own blog














TheMoneyBlogs
Home
About
Create your own blog
Contact us
Vote for this blog!

BioHealth Investor

BioHealth Investor (BHI) is a blog and journal focused on providing updated commentary and financial news from the biotech and medical technology industry. BHI's content is featured on Yahoo!Finance, Google Finance, TheStreet.com, SeekingAlpha.com and many other blogs and websites. BHI is also a proud member of The Business of Biotech Network, and the Investors Blog Network.

Eisai Defeats Dr. Reddy's And Teva In Aciphex Patent Suit

Posted on 05/17/2007 06:16:16 | Link | Post Comment
by Aaron F. Barkoff
Orange Book Blog



Eisai v. Dr. Reddy's and Teva, Nos. 03-9053 and 03-9223 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

Eisai owns U.S. Patent No. 5,045,552, which claims the chemical compound rabeprazole sodium, the active ingredient in Eisai's blockbuster proton-pump inhibitor Aciphex. Dr. Reddy's (RDY), Teva (TEVA) and Mylan (MYL) filed ANDAs for generic Aciphex with paragraph IV certifications to the '552 patent. Aciphex has annual U.S. sales of over $1 billion and accounts for a large percentage of Eisai's U.S. revenue, so naturally Eisai filed suit against the generic applicants.

Last October (as we previously reported), Judge Gerard E. Lynch of the Southern District of New York granted Eisai's motion for summary judgment of patent validity and partially granted Eisai's motion for summary judgment of no inequitable conduct. Dr. Reddy's and Teva had already stipulated to infringement. Judge Lynch held a two-week bench trial on the remaining inequitable conduct issues in March, and last Friday he issued a 62-page opinion in favor of Eisai.

At trial, Dr. Reddy's and Teva offered three allegations of inequitable conduct:

Eisai failed to disclose a later-filed, later-issuing co-pending patent application directed to the ethyl homolog of rabeprazole;

Eisai failed to disclose an international patent publication; and

Eisai omitted certain data from a Rule 132 declaration filed in the prosecution of the '552 patent, and therefore the declaration was misleading.


Judge Lynch found that Dr. Reddy's and Teva failed to prove that the co-pending application and certain rejections made during its prosecution were of such a highly material nature as to support an inference of an intent to deceive. Moreover, he concluded that the defendants utterly failed to prove any degree of an intent to deceive--finding the Eisai witnesses to be highly credible. Judge Lynch further found that Dr. Reddy's and Teva failed to prove either materiality of the international patent publication or an intent to deceive the patent office by failing to disclose it. Finally, Judge Lynch found that the Rule 132 declaration was not in fact misleading, and that Eisai had no intent to deceive the PTO by omitting certain data from it.

Though Friday's ruling came in the litigations involving Dr. Reddy's and Teva, Mylan had previously agreed to be bound by the outcome in the two cases. The ruling is an especially bitter defeat for Dr. Reddy's--since it was the first ANDA filer and the 180-day exclusivity holder. Dr. Reddy's (and perhaps Teva too) is expected to appeal the decision to the Federal Circuit.


Source: OrangeBookBlog.com




RELATED READING:
- Associated Press Article
- Apotex Loses Emergency Appeal, Dr. Reddy's Launches Generic Zofran
- Generic Drug Companies Suing Each Other!

_____________________
Stock Quote or
Examples
Morpheus Trading - Thu Jul 17, 2008 01:15AM
NOTE: Please click on the charts below to enlarge them if th [read more]
Morpheus Trading - Mon Jul 21, 2008 08:33AM
NOTE: Please click on the charts below to enlarge them if [read more]
The Swing of Things - Thu Jul 17, 2008 09:36AM
I used to make a pretty good living sharing hard won [read more]

PREMIER SPONSORED LINKS

Most Visited Blogs | Most Popular Blogs | Most Recent Blogs | Contact Us | Terms and conditions | Privacy Policy

The columns, articles, message board posts and any other features provided on TheMoneyBlogs.com are provided for personal finance, education and investment information and are not to be construed as investment advice. Under no circumstances does the information in this content represent a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. The views and opinions expressed in an article or column are the author's own and not necessarily those of TheMoneyBlogs.com and there is no implied endorsement by TheMoneyBlogs.com of any advice or trading strategy. The analysts and employees or affiliates of TheMoneyBlogs.com may hold positions in the stocks or industries discussed here. Your use of this and all information contained on TheMoneyBlogs.com is governed by the Terms and Conditions of Use. Please click the link to view those terms. Follow this link to read our Editorial Policy.

Copyright © 2008 The Connors Group, Inc.