Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. et al v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 13 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc., ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 3/30/2015. (fms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,)
KYORIN PHARMACEUTICAL CO.,
)
LTD. and ALLERGAN, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. And
)
AUROBINDO PHARMA U.S.A., INC.,
)
Defendants.

Civ. No. 14-579-SLR

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this 30th day of March, 2015, having reviewed defendants
Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. and Aurobindo Pharma U.S.A., lnc.'s (collectively, "defendants")
motion to dismiss, and the papers filed in connection therewith;
IT IS ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (D.I. 13) is granted for the
following reasons: On May 2, 2014, plaintiffs Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kyorin
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Allergan, Inc. (collectively "plaintiffs") filed the instant
action alleging infringement of reexamined United States Patent No. 6,333,045 ("the
'045 patent"). (D.I. 1) On August 6, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss based on this
court's finding that the '045 patent is invalid, 1 arguing that "[a] plaintiff cannot state a
claim for relief of patent infringement with an invalid patent." (D.I. 14 at 4) By a
decision issued on March 20, 2015 by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, this court's invalidity ruling was affirmed. 2 Because "an invalid claim

1

Senju Pharrn. Co. v. Lupin Ltd. & Lupin Pharm., Inc., Civ. No. 11-271, 2013 WL
4101820 (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2013).
2
Senju Pharrn. Co. v. Lupin Ltd., No. 2013-1630, 2015 WL 1260595 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 20,
2015).

cannot give rise to liability for infringement," Medtronic, Inc. v. Cardiac Pacemakers,

Inc., 721 F.2d 1563, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1983), 3 defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

~
United

3

~

Stat~ge

See also Lazare Kaplan Intern., Inc. v. Photoscribe Tech., Inc., 714 F.3d 1289, 1295
(Fed. Cir. 2013) ("[N]o accused products can be found liable for infringement of an
invalid claim").
2