Teva Accused of Infringing 10th Patent for Linzess
The makers of Linzess hit Teva Pharmaceuticals USA with another infringement suit Friday, accusing the Pennsylvania-based generic drugmaker of mounting a late challenge to a patent for the popular constipation drug.
October 20, 2017 at 06:30 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
The makers of Linzess hit Teva Pharmaceuticals USA with another infringement suit Friday, accusing the Pennsylvania-based generic drugmaker of mounting a late challenge to a patent for the popular constipation drug.
The complaint, filed by Forest Laboratories, Allergan USA Inc. and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals Inc. in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, accuses Teva of infringing a 10 patent for Linzess, which is used to treat irritable bowel syndrome with constipation and chronic idiopathic constipation. Last year, the companies sued Teva and a contingent of other pharmaceutical firms for trying to bring their generics to the market.
In Friday's complaint, the plaintiffs said the 2016 abbreviated new drug application Teva filed with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration identified nine patents as invalid and unenforceable, but made no mention of the so-called '371 patent at the heart of the new lawsuit.
It wasn't until Sept. 11, the companies said, that they finally received written notice from Teva regarding the '371 patent.
“Teva recently amended the Teva ANDA to include, for the first time, allegations that the claims of the '371 patent are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of the Teva generic products,” they wrote in the complaint, signed by Maryellen Noreika, a partner with Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell.
“If Teva commercially manufactures, uses, offers for sale, or sells within the United States, or imports into the United States, any of the Teva generic products, or induces or contributes to any such conduct, it would further infringe these claims of the '371 patent.”
According to the complaint, the generic tablets contain linaclotide, the same active ingredient used in Linzess.
A spokeswoman for Teva did not immediately respond Friday to a call requesting comment on the suit.
Allergan, a Delaware corporation based in New Jersey, is Linzess' exclusive distributor in the United States. Ironwood owns most of the patents in the suit, and Forest is the exclusive licensee for marketing and selling products containing linaclotide.
All three companies asked the court for monetary and injunctive relief, as well as orders postponing the effective date of the ANDA approvals until after the patents' last expiration date. They also asked the court to designate the case as exceptional, which would open the door to enhanced damages.
The first case, filed last November, is pending before U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews, who has been asked to dismiss the case for improper venue, following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, which tightened rules for establishing venue in patent infringement cases.
The plaintiffs are also represented by Jack B. Blumenfeld, also from Morris Nichols.
The case is captioned Forest Laboratories v. Teva Pharmaceuticals.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEagle Pharma Founder Sues Company to Recoup Cost of SEC Investigation
2 minute readPrivate Equity Firm's Counsel to Del. Supreme Court: Forfeiture Provisions Present 'a Choice'
4 minute readDavis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250