Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation et al v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc.

Filing 192

MEMORANDUM ORDER regarding a permanent injunction (see Memorandum Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/16/2017. Associated Cases: 1:14-cv-01043-RGA, 1:14-cv-01196-RGA, 1:14-cv-01289-RGA(nms)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION and NOVARTIS AG, Plaintiff; v. Civil Action No. 1 :14-cv-1043-RGA BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., Defendant. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION and NOVARTIS AG, Plaintiff; Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-1196-RGA V. ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION and NOVARTIS AG, Plaintiff; Civil Action No. 1 :14-cv-1289-RGA v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., Defendant. i I I i l MEMORANDUM ORDER l f I I The parties dispute whether Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B) prohibiting Defendants from commercially manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States the product that is the subject of Defendants' ANDAs. There is no dispute that FDA approval of Defendants' ANDAs should be enjoined until after the expiration of Plaintiffs period of pediatric exclusivity. Plaintiffs, however, seek to enjoin Defendants from a broad range of what Defendants contend are non-infringing activities. On the record as it stands and for the reasons given by Judge Stark in Bayer Pharma and Judge Robinson in Alcon, I do not think Plaintiffs are entitled to such an injunction. Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Labs., Inc., 2016 WL 7468172, at *2-3 (D. Del. Dec. 28, 2016); Alcon, Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 2010 WL 3081327, at *2-3 (D. Del. Aug. 5, 2010). While I am dubious about whether Plaintiffs can establish that they entitled to the injunction they request, I am also mindful that I do not permit this issue to be addressed at trial. Therefore, if Plaintiffs believe they are entitled to a permanent injunction under§ 271(e)(4)(B), they should request a hearing at which they will need to establish (1) they have suffered or will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (2) available legal remedies are inadequate to compensate for this harm; (3) the balance of hardships favors a permanent injunction; and (4) the public interest supports the issuance of a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). I I I I I I 1 I I j Entered this Jt day of May, 2017. f I f

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?