throbber
Case 1:21-cv-00188-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. ________
`
`
`
`
`))))))))))))
`
`
`
`BIAL - PORTELA & CA S.A., BIAL -
`HOLDING, S.A., and SUNOVION
`PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD. and
`DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiffs BIAL - PORTELA & CA S.A., BIAL - HOLDING, S.A., and Sunovion
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by their attorneys, for their Complaint against
`
`Defendants Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“DRL”), allege as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`BIAL - PORTELA & CA S.A. is a Portuguese corporation having its principal
`
`place of business at Avenida da Siderurgia Nacional, Coronado (São Romão and São Mamede),
`
`4745 455 Trofa, Portugal.
`
`2.
`
`BIAL - HOLDING, S.A. is a Portuguese corporation having its principal place of
`
`business at Avenida da Siderurgia Nacional, Coronado (São Romão and São Mamede), 4745 365
`
`Trofa, Portugal.
`
`3.
`
`BIAL - PORTELA & CA S.A. and BIAL - HOLDING, S.A. (collectively, “Bial”)
`
`are in the business of developing innovative therapies for epilepsy, partial-onset seizures, and
`
`other related neurological conditions. Bial’s asserted patent(s) cover APTIOM®, which is
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00188-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 2
`
`
`marketed and sold in this judicial district and throughout the United States by Sunovion
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. for treating partial-onset seizures in patients 4 years of age and older.
`
`4.
`
`Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Sunovion”) is a corporation operating and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 84
`
`Waterford Drive, Marlborough, Massachusetts 01752.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of India, with its principal place of business at Door No. 8-
`
`2-337, Road No. 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 034 India.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. is in the business of,
`
`inter alia, manufacturing, marketing, and selling generic copies of branded pharmaceutical
`
`products throughout the United States, including in the State of Delaware.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of New Jersey, with its principal place of business at 107
`
`College Road East, Princeton, New Jersey 08540.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. is a wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. is in the business of,
`
`inter alia, manufacturing, marketing, and selling generic copies of branded pharmaceutical
`
`products throughout the United States, including in the State of Delaware, in concert with Dr.
`
`Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd.
`
`10.
`
`On information and belief, the acts of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. complained
`
`of herein were done with the cooperation, participation, and assistance of Dr. Reddy’s
`
`Laboratories, Inc.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00188-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 3
`
`
`11.
`
`On information and belief, and consistent with their practice with respect to other
`
`generic products, following FDA approval of Eslicarbazepine Acetate Tablets 200, 400, 600, and
`
`800 mg Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) No. 211238, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories,
`
`Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. will act in concert to distribute and sell the generic
`
`product described in Eslicarbazepine Acetate Tablets 200, 400, 600, and 800 mg ANDA No.
`
`211238 (“DRL’s Generic Product”) throughout the United States, including the State of
`
`Delaware.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`12.
`
`This is a civil action for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,912,781 (“the
`
`’781 patent” or “the patent-in-suit”) arising under the United States Patent Laws, Title 35, United
`
`States Code, § 1, et. seq., and in particular under 35 U.S.C. § 271. This action relates to ANDA
`
`No. 211238, which DRL filed or caused to be filed under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j) with the United
`
`States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), for approval to market in the United States a
`
`generic copy of Plaintiffs’ APTIOM® product prior to the expiration of the patent-in-suit.
`
`13.
`
`DRL has infringed one or more claims of the ’781 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(e)(2)(A) by virtue of its filing of ANDA No. 211238 seeking FDA approval for the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, import, offer for sale, and/or sale in the United States of DRL’s
`
`Generic Product prior to the expiration of the ’781 patent, or any extensions thereof. DRL will
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ’781 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), or (c) should it
`
`engage in the commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, distribution in, or importation
`
`into the United States of DRL’s Generic Product prior to the expiration of the ’781 patent, or any
`
`extensions thereof.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs previously filed a separate action in this Court against DRL for patent
`
`infringement, which included counts for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,750,747 (“the ’747
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00188-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4
`
`
`patent”), 8,372,431 (“the ’431 patent”), 9,206,135 (“the ’135 patent”), 9,566,244 (“the ’244
`
`patent”), 9,643,929 (“the ’929 patent”), and 9,763,954 (“the ’954 patent”). Bial - Portela & CA
`
`S.A., et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 18-341-CFC (the “First Suit”) was
`
`filed on March 2, 2018. The First Suit was filed in response to a letter from DRL dated January
`
`17, 2018 (“DRL’s First Notice Letter”), purporting to be a “Notice of Paragraph IV
`
`Certification” for ANDA No. 211238 pursuant to § 505(j)(2)(b)(iv) of the Federal Food, Drug,
`
`and Cosmetic Act and 21 C.F.R. § 314.95 as to the ’747 patent, the ’431 patent, the ’135 patent,
`
`the ’244 patent, the ’929 patent, and the ’954 patent. The First Suit included counts for
`
`infringement of the ’747 patent, the ’431 patent, the ’135 patent, the ’244 patent, the ’929 patent,
`
`and the ’954 patent.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiffs previously filed a separate action in this Court against DRL for patent
`
`infringement, which included counts for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,675,287 (“the ’287
`
`patent”), 10,695,354 (“the ’354 patent”), and 10,702,536 (“the ’536 patent”). Bial - Portela &
`
`CA S.A., et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 20-784-CFC (the “Second
`
`Suit”) was filed on June 9, 2020, and an amended complaint was filed on July 7, 2020. Plaintiffs
`
`received a letter from DRL dated August 21, 2020 (“DRL’s Second Notice Letter”), purporting
`
`to be a “Notice of Paragraph IV Certification” for ANDA No. 211238 pursuant to §
`
`505(j)(2)(b)(iv) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and 21 C.F.R. § 314.95 as to the
`
`ʼ287, patent, the ʼ354 patent, and the ʼ536 patent. The Second Suit included counts for
`
`infringement of the ʼ287 patent, the ʼ354 patent, and the ʼ536 patent.
`
`16.
`
`The First Suit and the Second Suit did not include counts for infringement of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,753,646 (“the ’646 patent”), which will expire on June 27, 2021, because DRL’s
`
`First Notice Letter and DRL’s Second Notice Letter did not assert noninfringement or invalidity
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00188-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 5
`
`
`of the ’646 patent. Based on information and belief, DRL is maintaining its certification as to
`
`the ’747 patent, the ’431 patent, the ’135 patent, the ’244 patent, the ’929 patent, the ’954 patent,
`
`the ʼ287 patent, the ʼ354 patent, and the ʼ536 patent set out in DRL’s First Notice Letter and
`
`DRL’s Second Notice Letter. Thus, Plaintiffs will continue to prosecute all infringement counts
`
`presented in the First Suit and the Second Suit.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the prior paragraphs of this Complaint as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`18.
`
`This is a civil action for patent infringement and declaratory judgment arising
`
`under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., including 35 U.S.C. § 271, and
`
`the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and
`
`1400(b), because Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. is incorporated in India and may be sued in any
`
`judicial district in the United States in which it is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction.
`
`21.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., inter
`
`alia, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), because Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. is
`
`organized under the laws of India.
`
`22.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over DRL because at least one provision
`
`of the Delaware long-arm statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104(c), is satisfied. On information and belief,
`
`DRL satisfies at least § 3104(c)(1) (“[t]ransacts any business or performs any character of work
`
`or service in the State), § 3104(c)(2) (“[c]ontracts to supply services or things in this State”), §
`
`3104(c)(3) (“[c]auses tortious injury in the State by an act or omission in this State), § 3104(c)(4)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00188-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 6
`
`
`“[c]auses tortious injury in the State or outside of the State by an act or omission outside the
`
`State if the person regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of
`
`conduct in the State or derives substantial revenue from services, or things used or consumed in
`
`the State”), and § 3104(c)(5) (“[h]as an interest in, uses or possesses real property in the State”).
`
`23.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over DRL because, inter alia, this action
`
`arises from activities of DRL directed toward Delaware.
`
`24.
`
`Upon information and belief, the effort to seek approval for ANDA No. 211238
`
`and to manufacture, import, market, and/or sell DRL’s Generic Product upon approval has been
`
`a cooperative and joint enterprise and venture between Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr.
`
`Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.
`
`25.
`
`Upon information and belief, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s
`
`Laboratories, Inc. have an express and/or implied agreement to cooperate in the joint enterprise
`
`and venture of preparing, filing, and maintaining ANDA No. 211238 and in commercializing
`
`DRL’s Generic Product in the United States, including in this judicial district, in accordance with
`
`ANDA No. 211238 upon approval.
`
`26.
`
`Upon information and belief, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s
`
`Laboratories, Inc. have thus been, and continue to be, joint and prime actors in the drafting,
`
`submission, approval, and maintenance of ANDA No. 211238.
`
`27.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over DRL by virtue of the fact that, inter alia,
`
`DRL has committed—or aided, abetted, induced, contributed to, or participated in the
`
`commission of—the tortious act of patent infringement that has led and/or will lead to
`
`foreseeable harm and injury to Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00188-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 7
`
`
`28.
`
`On information and belief, and consistent with their practice with respect to other
`
`generic products, following FDA approval of ANDA No. 211238, DRL will market, distribute,
`
`and sell DRL’s Generic Product described in ANDA No. 211238 throughout the United States,
`
`including in Delaware.
`
`29.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over DRL because, inter alia, DRL has
`
`purposefully availed itself of the rights and benefits of Delaware law by engaging in systematic
`
`and continuous contacts with Delaware. Upon information and belief, DRL, either directly or
`
`through affiliates, currently sells significant quantities of generic drug products in the United
`
`States and in the State of Delaware. DRL’s website states that “Generic Formulations, including
`
`tablets . . . is the largest part of our business portfolio,” that its “major markets include – USA,”
`
`that it has “99 generic filings pending approval from the USFDA, consisting of 97 ANDAs,” and
`
`that “[o]f these, 97 ANDAs, 54 are Para IV filings and [DRL] believe[s] 30 of these have ‘First
`
`to
`
`File’
`
`status.”
`
`See
`
`https://www.drreddys.com/our-products/business-focus/generics/;
`
`https://www.drreddys.com/media/904784/factsheet_july_2020.pdf;
`
`https://www.drreddys.com/media/884823/annualreport2020forwebsite.pdf (accessed February
`
`10, 2021). On information and belief, DRL derives substantial revenue from the sale of those
`
`products in Delaware and has availed itself of the privilege of conducting business within the
`
`State of Delaware.
`
`30.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over DRL because, inter alia, it has
`
`availed itself of this forum previously for the purpose of litigating a patent dispute. For example,
`
`DRL has previously invoked this Court’s jurisdiction by asserting counterclaims in at least 19
`
`other cases. See, e.g., 20-cv-00847, 19-cv-02045, 19-cv-01495, 18-cv-01839, 18-cv-01779, 17-
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00188-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 8
`
`
`cv-01811, 16-cv-01267, 16-cv-01011, 16-cv-00900, 15-cv-01067, 15-cv-00670, 15-cv-00179,
`
`13-cv-02082, and 13-cv-01506.
`
`31.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over DRL because DRL did not contest
`
`jurisdiction in the First Suit or the Second Suit.
`
`32.
`
`For these reasons and other reasons that will be presented to the Court if
`
`jurisdiction is challenged, the Court has personal jurisdiction over DRL.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The NDA
`
`33.
`
`Sunovion is the holder of New Drug Application (“NDA”) No. 022416 for
`
`APTIOM® (eslicarbazepine acetate) Tablets in 200, 400, 600, and 800 mg dosage forms.
`
`34.
`
`The FDA approved NDA No. 022416 on November 8, 2013, for use as adjunctive
`
`therapy of partial-onset seizures.
`
`35.
`
`The FDA approved NDA No. 022416 on August 27, 2015, for use as
`
`monotherapy of partial-onset seizures.
`
`36.
`
`The FDA approved NDA No. 022416 on September 13, 2017, for pediatric
`
`patients 4 years of age and older.
`
`37.
`
`APTIOM® Tablets are prescription drugs approved for the treatment of partial-
`
`onset seizures in patients 4 years of age and older. Eslicarbazepine acetate is the active
`
`ingredient in the APTIOM® Tablets.
`
`The Patent-in-Suit
`
`38.
`
`The ’781 patent, titled “Pharmaceutical Composition Comprising Licarbazepine
`
`Acetate,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on
`
`February 9, 2021. A true and correct copy of the ’781 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00188-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 9
`
`
`39.
`
`BIAL - PORTELA & CA S.A. owns the rights to the ’781 patent. Sunovion is the
`
`exclusive licensee in the United States of the ’781 patent. The ’781 patent will expire on
`
`October 23, 2028.
`
`40.
`
`Information regarding the ’781 patent was submitted to the FDA for listing in the
`
`Orange Book in connection with NDA No. 022416 for APTIOM® (Eslicarbazepine Acetate)
`
`Tablets.
`
`41.
`
`The ’781 patent covers pharmaceutical compositions comprising licarbazepine
`
`acetate.
`
`The ANDA
`
`42.
`
`On information and belief, DRL filed ANDA No. 211238 with the FDA under 21
`
`U.S.C. § 355(j) before January 17, 2018, to obtain FDA approval for the commercial
`
`manufacture, use, import, offer for sale, and/or sale in the United States of (eslicarbazepine
`
`acetate) Tablets in 200, 400, 600, and 800 mg dosage forms, which are generic versions of
`
`Plaintiffs’ APTIOM® (eslicarbazepine acetate) Tablets in 200, 400, 600, and 800 mg dosage
`
`forms.
`
`43.
`
`DRL’s First Notice Letter alleged that the claims of the ’747 patent, the ’431
`
`patent, the ’135 patent, the ’244 patent, the ’929 patent, and the ’954 patent are invalid and/or
`
`will not be infringed by the activities described in DRL’s ANDA No. 211238. DRL’s First
`
`Notice Letter also informed Plaintiffs that DRL seeks approval to market DRL’s Generic Product
`
`before the ’747, ’431, ’135, ’244, ’929, and ’954 patents expire.
`
`44.
`
`DRL’s Second Notice Letter alleged that the claims of the ʼ287 patent, the ʼ354
`
`patent, and the ʼ536 patent are invalid and/or will not be infringed by the activities described in
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00188-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 10
`
`
`DRL’s ANDA No. 211238. DRL’s Second Notice Letter also informed Plaintiffs that DRL
`
`seeks approval to market DRL’s Generic Product before the ʼ287, ʼ354, and ’536 patents expire.
`
`45.
`
`The ʼ747 patent will expire on August 24, 2032. The ʼ431 patent will expire on
`
`April 17, 2030. The ’135 and ’929 patents will expire on April 21, 2026. The ʼ244 patent will
`
`expire on October 23, 2028. The ʼ954 patent will expire on September 13, 2028. The ’287,
`
`ʼ354, and ʼ536 patents will expire on May 6, 2025. The ʼ781 patent will expire on October 23,
`
`2028.
`
`46.
`
`DRL’s ANDA No. 211238 has been pending before the FDA since at least
`
`January 17, 2018, the date of DRL’s First Notice Letter to Plaintiffs.
`
`47.
`
`On information and belief, following FDA approval of DRL’s ANDA No.
`
`211238, DRL will make, use, sell, or offer to sell DRL’s Generic Product throughout the United
`
`States, or import such generic products into the United States before the ’781 patent expires.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’781 PATENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2))
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the prior paragraphs of this Complaint as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`49.
`
`On information and belief, DRL filed ANDA No. 211238 in order to obtain
`
`approval to manufacture, use, import, offer to sell, and/or sell DRL’s Generic Product in the
`
`United States before the expiration of the ’781 patent.
`
`50.
`
`On information and belief, in its ANDA No. 211238, DRL has represented to the
`
`FDA that DRL’s Generic Product is pharmaceutically and therapeutically equivalent to
`
`Plaintiffs’ APTIOM® tablets.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00188-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 11
`
`
`51.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A), the submission to the FDA of ANDA No.
`
`211238 seeking approval for the commercial manufacture, use, or sale of DRL’s Generic Product
`
`before the expiration date of the ’781 patent, constitutes infringement, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents.
`
`52.
`
`After FDA approval of ANDA No. 211238, DRL will infringe one or more claims
`
`of the ’781 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents under § 271(a) by making,
`
`using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing DRL’s Generic Product, and by actively
`
`inducing infringement by others under § 271(b) and/or contributing to infringement under
`
`§ 271(c), unless this Court orders that the effective date of any FDA approval of ANDA No.
`
`211238 shall be no earlier than the expiration of the ’781 patent and any additional periods of
`
`exclusivity.
`
`53.
`
`On information and belief, if ANDA No. 211238 is approved, DRL intends to and
`
`will offer to sell, sell, and/or import in the United States DRL’s Generic Product.
`
`54.
`
`DRL has had and continues to have knowledge that DRL’s Generic Product is
`
`especially adapted for a use that infringes the ’781 patent.
`
`55.
`
`On information and belief, DRL has had and continues to have knowledge that
`
`there is no substantial non-infringing use for DRL’s Generic Product.
`
`56.
`
`On information and belief, DRL’s actions relating to DRL’s ANDA No. 211238
`
`complained of herein were done by and for the benefit of DRL.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed if DRL is not enjoined from infringing or
`
`actively inducing infringement of at least one claim of the ’781 patent. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 283, Plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction against further infringement. Plaintiffs do
`
`not have an adequate remedy at law.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00188-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 12
`
`
`COUNT II
`
`(DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT OF INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’781 PATENT)
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the prior paragraphs of this Complaint as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`59.
`
`This count arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
`
`2202.
`
`60.
`
`There is an actual and justiciable controversy between Plaintiffs and DRL
`
`concerning infringement of the ’781 patent of sufficient immediacy and reality such that the
`
`Court may entertain Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief consistent with Article III of the
`
`United States Constitution, and this actual case or controversy requires a declaration of rights by
`
`this Court.
`
`61.
`
`DRL has made, and continues to make, substantial preparation in the United
`
`States to manufacture, offer to sell, sell and/or import DRL’s Generic Product prior to expiration
`
`of the ’781 patent.
`
`62.
`
`DRL’s actions, including, but not limited to, submitting, or causing to be
`
`submitted to the FDA, ANDA No. 211238 seeking approval to manufacture, use, import, offer to
`
`sell and sell DRL’s Generic Product before the expiration date of the ’781 patent and engaging in
`
`litigation, indicate a refusal to change the course of their actions in the face of knowledge of the
`
`’781 patent and acts by Plaintiffs.
`
`63.
`
`On information and belief, DRL intends to manufacture, use, import, offer to sell
`
`and/or sell DRL’s Generic Product after FDA approval of ANDA No. 211238.
`
`64.
`
`After FDA approval of ANDA No. 211238, DRL will infringe one or more claims
`
`of the ’781 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents under § 271(a) by making,
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00188-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 13
`
`
`using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing DRL’s Generic Product, and/or by actively
`
`inducing infringement by others under § 271(b) and/or contributing to infringement under §
`
`271(c).
`
`65.
`
`On information and belief, if ANDA No. 211238 is approved, DRL intends to and
`
`will offer to sell, sell, and/or import in the United States DRL’s Generic Product.
`
`66.
`
`DRL has had and continues to have knowledge that DRL’s Generic Product is
`
`especially adapted for a use that infringes the ’781 patent.
`
`67.
`
`On information and belief, DRL has had and continues to have knowledge that
`
`there is no substantial non-infringing use for DRL’s Generic Product.
`
`68.
`
`On information and belief, DRL’s actions relating to DRL’s ANDA No. 211238
`
`complained of herein were done by and for the benefit of DRL.
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed if DRL is not enjoined from infringing or
`
`actively inducing infringement of at least one claim of the ’781 patent.
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction against further infringement.
`
`Plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at law.
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that future commercial
`
`manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale and/or importation of DRL’s Generic Product prior to
`
`expiration of the ’781 patent by DRL will constitute direct infringement, contributory
`
`infringement and/or active inducement of infringement of the ’781 patent.
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`The entry of judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) that DRL has infringed at
`
`least one claim of the patent-in-suit through DRL’s submission of ANDA No. 211238 to the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00188-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 14
`
`
`FDA to obtain approval to manufacture, use, import, offer to sell, and/or sell DRL’s Generic
`
`Product in the United States before the expiration of the patent-in-suit;
`
`B.
`
`The entry of judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and/or (c) that DRL’s
`
`making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing DRL’s Generic Product prior to the
`
`expiration of the patent-in-suit will infringe, actively induce infringement, and/or contribute to
`
`the infringement of the patent-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and/or (c);
`
`C.
`
`The issuance of an order that the effective date of any FDA approval of DRL’s
`
`Generic Product shall be no earlier than the expiration date of the patent-in-suit and any
`
`additional periods of exclusivity, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A);
`
`D.
`
`The entry of a preliminary and/or permanent injunction, enjoining DRL and all
`
`persons acting in concert with DRL from commercially manufacturing, using, offering for sale,
`
`or selling DRL’s Generic Product within the United States, or importing DRL’s Generic Product
`
`into the United States, until the expiration of the patent-in-suit, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`271(e)(4)(B) and 283;
`
`E.
`
`The entry of a preliminary and/or permanent injunction, enjoining DRL and all
`
`persons acting in concert with DRL from seeking, obtaining, or maintaining approval of the
`
`ANDA until the expiration of the patent-in-suit, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(e)(4)(B)
`
`and 283;
`
`F.
`
`The issuance of a declaration and the entry of judgment under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201
`
`and 2202 that any future commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, and/or importation of
`
`DRL’s Generic Product prior to expiration of the patent-in-suit by DRL will constitute direct
`
`infringement, contributory infringement and/or active inducement of infringement of the patent-
`
`in-suit under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a)-(c);
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00188-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 15
`
`
`G.
`
`The issuance of a declaration that this is an exceptional case and an award to
`
`Plaintiffs of their costs, expenses, and disbursements in this action, including reasonable attorney
`
`fees, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 285 and 271(e)(4);
`
`H.
`
`An
`
`award
`
`to Plaintiffs of
`
`any
`
`further
`
`appropriate
`
`relief under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4); and
`
`I.
`
`An award to Plaintiffs of any further and additional relief that this Court deems
`
`just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00188-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/10/21 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
`LLP
`
`/s/ Jennifer Ying
`
`
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Karen A. Jacobs (#2881)
`Jennifer Ying (#5550)
`1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`kjacobs@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Sunovion
`Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASHBY & GEDDES
`
`
`/s/ Steven J. Balick
`
`Steven J. Balick (#2114)
`Andrew C. Mayo (#5207)
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1150
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 654-1888
`sbalick@ashbygeddes.com
`amayo@ashbygeddes.com
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`James B. Monroe
`Jennifer H. Roscetti
`Charles T. Collins-Chase
`Lauren J. Dowty
`Danielle C. Pfifferling
`Meredith H. Boerschlein
`Ryan V. McDonnell
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4431
`(202) 408-4000
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs BIAL - PORTELA &
`CA S.A. and BIAL - HOLDING, S.A.
`
`
`Dated: February 10, 2021
`
`
`
`16
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket