Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Act Avis LLC,

United States District Court, D. Delaware

February 8, 2017

ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and MALLINCKRODT LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
ACT AVIS INC., ACT AVIS SOUTH ATLANTIC LLC, ACT A VIS PHARMA, INC., ACT AVIS ELIZABETH LLC, ACT AVIS HOLDCO U.S., INC., and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. Defendants.

          Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq., MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE; Derek J. Fahnestock, Esq., MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen J. Kraftschik, Esq., MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jonathan D. Loeb, Esq., DECHERT LLP, Mountain View, CA; Martin J. Black, Esq., DECHERT LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Sharon K. Gagliardi, Esq., DECHERT LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Julie Latsko, Esq., DECHERT LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Joseph Gribbin, Esq., DECHERT LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Robert D. Rhoad, Esq., DECHERT LLP, Princeton, NJ; Brian M. Goldberg, Esq., DECHERT LLP, Princeton, NJ.

          Attorneys for Plaintiff Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.

          Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq., MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE; Derek J. Fahnestock, Esq., MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen J. Kraftschik, Esq., MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey J. Toney, Esq., KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP, Atlanta, GA; Rodney R. Miller, Esq., KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP, Atlanta, GA; Paul G. Williams, Esq., KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP, Atlanta, GA; Marcus A. Barber, Esq., KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP, Redwood Shores, CA.

          Attorneys for Plaintiff Mallinckrodt LLC.

          Adam W. Poff, Esq., YOUNG CONWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert M. Vrana, Esq., YOUNG CONWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP, Wilmington, DE; Charles A. Weiss, Esq., HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, New York, NY; Howard S. Suh, Esq., HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, New York, NY; Eric H. Yecies, Esq., HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, New York, NY; Nicholas P. Chiara, Esq., HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, New York, NY.

          Attorneys for Defendants Actavis Inc., Actavis South Atlantic LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc., Actavis Elizabeth LLC, and Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc.

          Adam W. Poff, Esq., YOUNG CONWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert M. Vrana, Esq., YOUNG CONWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP, Wilmington, DE; James F. Hurst, Esq., KRIKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Chicago, IL; Jeanna M. Wacker, Esq., KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New York, NY; John C. O'Quinn, Esq., KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Washington, DC.

          Attorneys for Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Presently before the Court are Defendant Actavis' Partial Motion to Dismiss Counts I, III, IV, VI, and VII (D.I. 147) and related briefing (D.I. 148, 161, 164) and Defendant Teva's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (D.I. 149) and related briefing (D.I. 150, 161, 165).

         As an initial matter, Plaintiffs represent that the parties have agreed to file for partial final judgment with respect to the Counts involving the '737 patent (D.I. 161 at 11), which was invalidated in my previous order of November 17, 2015. (D.I. 67). Therefore, Plaintiffs argue, the motions as to Counts I, III, and IV are moot. Regardless, they need to be dismissed. I think the effect is the same.

         Defendant Teva has moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Counts II and V for failure to state a claim. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion may be granted only if, accepting the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the complainant, a court concludes that those allegations "could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief." Bell Ail. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007).

         As to Counts II and VI, Defendant Teva argues that it is not a proper defendant because "all alleged infringing activity had ceased" prior to Teva's acquisition of Defendant Actavis. (D.I. 150 at 16). Plaintiffs counter that as "owner and real party in interest... it is plausible that Teva is liable for the past infringements." (D.I. 161 at 35). While Teva may ultimately be financially liable for the past infringements, Plaintiffs have not pled that Teva is itself an infringer. Therefore, Defendant Teva is not a proper defendant as to counts based on acts of infringement that occurred prior to Teva's acquisition of Actavis. Counts II and VI are dismissed as to Defendant Teva.

         As to Count V, Defendant Teva argues that it is not a proper defendant because "it did not prepare or file this ANDA." (D.I. 150 at 14). Plaintiffs counter that Defendant "Teva is the corporate parent of the current defendants and intends to manufacture, market, and sell the infringing drug itself." (D.I. 161 at 16; D.I. 140 at ¶¶10-13). There is no explicit requirement in § 271(e) that a party must have prepared or filed the ANDA itself in order to be a proper defendant. See In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litig.,703 F.3d 511, 527-28 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding "inten[t] to directly benefit from the ANDA" supports liability for infringement). Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendant Teva is the owner and real party in interest of the ANDA and will ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.