Sandoz Released From Suit Targeting Planned Generic Lung Treatment Competitor
A Delaware federal judge on Thursday approved an agreement by San Francisco-based Genentech and Sandoz to dismiss the two entities, without prejudice, from the lawsuit, because neither had been involved in filing an abbreviated new drug application at the heart of the dispute.
May 02, 2019 at 03:55 PM
3 minute read
Sandoz International and its Switzerland-based subsidiary have been released from a patent infringement suit that aims to protect Genentech Inc.'s pulmonary fibrosis treatment from generic competition.
A Delaware federal judge on Thursday approved an agreement by San Francisco-based Genentech and Sandoz to dismiss the two entities, without prejudice, from the lawsuit, because neither had been involved in filing an abbreviated new drug application at the heart of the dispute.
Under the agreement, submitted to the court Wednesday, Sandoz International and Sandoz AG would still be bound by any decision that U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews of the District of Delaware may enter in the case, as if they were named defendants in the case.
The move leaves only Sandoz Inc., the company's U.S. subsidiary, to face claims in the suit that its planned generic infringes 16 patents covering Esbriet, Genentech's drug for slowing the progression of IPF, a fatal disease which causes scarring of the lungs and thus prevents the body's vital organs from receiving enough oxygen to function properly.
Genetech, a subsidiary of the Roche Group, said in a January court filing that Esbriet gained Food and Drug Administration approval in 2014, shortly after it acquired the biotechnology company InterMune Inc., which developed the drug and owns the patents. According to the complaint, the FDA accorded Esbriet status as a breakthrough therapy, and awarded it orphan drug exclusivity through October 15, 2021.
Genentech said its action arose when Sandoz sent the company a letter in December, notifying it that had filed its ANDA and planned to seek approval for a commercial launch before the exclusive patent rights expired.
“Sandoz now seeks to piggy-back on Plaintiffs' hard work by seeking FDA approval of the Sandoz ANDA that cross-references and relies upon Plaintiffs' clinical trial data,” Genentech's Loeb & Loeb and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell attorneys wrote in the 45-page complaint.
“In so doing, Sandoz has not conducted any of the clinical trials needed to demonstrate effectiveness and safe conditions of use for its proposed Sandoz ANDA product. Rather, Sandoz asks that the FDA permit the Sandoz ANDA to rely on proprietary clinical data submitted by Plaintiffs InterMune and Genentech,” they said.
Sandoz is expected to file its response to the complaint Friday, according to the case docket.
Under the dismissal agreement, Sandoz has agreed not to contest personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction or venue in the case.
Roche reported earlier this year sales of Esbriet topped $1 billion in 2018. However, competitors have been lining up to challenge the drug's blockbuster status, leading Genentech to file at least 18 lawsuits to block generic versions of the drug, according to media reports.
Genentech is represented by Mark E. Waddell, Warren K. MacRae and Ryan Hagglund of Loeb & Loeb in New York and Jack B. Blumenfeld and Karen Jacobs of Morris Nichols in Wilmington.
Sandoz is represented by Elaine Herrmann Blais, Emily L. Rapalino and Srikanth K. Reddy of Goodwin Procter in Boston and Natasha E. Daughtrey from the firm's office in Los Angeles Stephen B. Brauerman of Bayard in Wilmington is acting as local counsel.
The case is captioned Genentech v. Sandoz.
|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 AllWilson Sonsini Knocks Out Claims Against Inhibrx Biosciences in Trade Secrets Verdict
Superior Court: More Overlap in Case Facts Needed for Insurer to Deny D&O Coverage
3 minute readJury Verdict in Medical Patent Case Overturned, Highlighting USPTO and FDA Disconnect
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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