Credit: bluecinemaEndo Sues to Protect Patented Blood Pressure Medication
This action was surfaced by Law.com Radar, which delivers artificial intelligence-enhanced case summaries and daily case reports from more than 2,200 state and federal courts. Click here to get started and be among the first to act on opportunities in your region, practice area or client sector.
January 03, 2025 at 10:53 AM
3 minute read
Cozen O’Connor filed a patent infringement suit on behalf of pharmaceutical manufacturer Endo Operations over Gland Pharma’s attempt to create a generic version of the patented hypotension medication Vasostrict. The claim, filed Tuesday in New Jersey federal court, claimed that Gland’s abbreviated new drug application submitted to the Food and Drug Administration was submitted before Endo’s patent for Vasostrict expired.
Takeaway: The lawsuit is an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, case, which is a highly active practice in New Jersey and elsewhere.
Court: New Jersey, U.S. District Court
Case Type: Intellectual Property and Patent Infringement
Industry: Pharmaceutical
Lawyers: Kaan Ekiner, W. Blake Coblentz, Aaron S. Lukas and Keri L. Schaubert of Cozen O’Connor represent Endo. Counsel has yet to enter an appearance for the defendant.
Liability arguments: Gland is a pharmaceutical company based in Telangana, India. Endo has locations in both Pennsylvania and Dublin, Ireland. The complaint alleged that the New Jersey district court has jurisdiction in the case because of the state’s long-arm statute, due process of law, and Gland has extensive contacts with New Jersey and regularly does business in the judicial district.
Vasopressin, a polypeptide hormone, is the active ingredient in Vasostrict, a lifesaving drug used when blood pressure drops precipitously.
The patent for Vasostrict originated in September 2012 when JHP Pharmaceuticals applied for FDA approval. JHP was acquired by Par Pharmaceuticals. Endo currently holds the patent for the drug, which was acquired from Par Pharmaceuticals and Par Sterile, according to the complaint. Endo became aware that Gland submitted an ANDA for Vasostrict on Nov. 18 when it received written notice from the defendant.
The complaint alleges eight counts of patent infringement.
Damages arguments: Endo alleged that it tried to negotiate with Gland to receive relevant information from the ANDA but received no response from the company. The suit seeks a judgment that Gland infringed if it manufactured and sold a generic drug version before the patent expiration date. The complaint also seeks damages as well as attorney costs and fees.
What the lawyers are saying: Counsel for Endo did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Counsel has yet to enter an appearance for Gland, and a request for comment sent to the company was not returned.
Radar scan: New Jersey has seen a steady stream of patent infringement and intellectual property claims filed by pharmaceutical companies to protect their patented medications from competitors looking to create generic versions. Many of those cases have recently been filed against companies based in India. According to Law.com Radar, 20 patent infringement suits have been filed in New Jersey federal court against Indian-based companies since December.
Caption: Endo USA v. Gland Pharma
Date filed: Dec. 31, 2024
Judge: U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi
Read the complaint here.
This action was surfaced by Law.com Radar, which delivers artificial intelligence-enhanced case summaries and daily case reports from more than 2,200 state and federal courts. Click here to get started and be among the first to act on opportunities in your region, practice area or client sector.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 All
First-of-Its-Kind Parkinson’s Patch at Center of Fight Over FDA Approval of Generic Version
3 minute read
Who Got the Work: Saul Ewing Team Appears for Samsung Bioepis in Amgen Patent Case
4 minute read
How Safe Is Cannabis, Really? Here's What Plaintiffs' Attorneys Should Know
8 minute read
Decongestant Lawsuits Name Nearly 20 Companies, 'They Know It's a Serious Case.'
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
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
