AbbVie Inc. et al v. Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH et al
Filing
459
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Signed by Judge Richard A. Lloret on 3/29/19. (rwc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ABBVIE INC. and ABBVIE
BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD
v.
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
INTERNATIONAL GMBH,
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
FREMONT, INC.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO. 17-cv-01065-MSG-RL
MEMORANDUM OPINION CONCERNING DOC. NO. 326
RICHARD A. LLORET
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
March 29, 2019
Introduction
The plaintiffs (collectively, “AbbVie”) have moved to compel deposition
testimony. Doc. No. 326 (“AV Mot.”). AbbVie argues that the defendants’ (collectively,
Boehringer) attorney improperly directed Dr. Dougherty and Mr. Blanarik not to answer
certain questions at their depositions. Id. at 1. In addition, AbbVie contends that various
witnesses were not properly prepared to testify about their designated topics. AV Mot. at
3-5.
According to AbbVie, the questions directed to Dr. Dougherty “related to the
status of formulations for the accused product, BI 695501.” Id. at 1. AbbVie alleges that
information about alternative formulations of Boehringer’s product developed by
Boehringer may reveal information relevant to secondary considerations of nonobviousness, such as copying or commercial success. AV Mot. at 2. As for Mr. Blanarik,
the questions “related to the launch and release of the accused product, BI 695501.” Id.
at 1. AbbVie contends that directing the witnesses not to answer was inappropriate, as
there was no protective order filed or granted. Id. at 1-2.
Boehringer contends that it “did not instruct Dr. Dougherty not to answer about
‘the status of formulations for the accused product,’ as AbbVie asserts.” Doc. No. 336, at
2 n.2 (“BI Opp.”). Boehringer also argues that before the depositions commenced, it had
“agreed to designate a witness to testify regarding formulations considered in the course
of development of the accused aBLA product, but objected to discovery of unaccused
potential future products.” Id. at 1. Boehringer contends that “potential launch-related
information” sought from Mr. Blanarik should be off-limits, for reasons described in its
earlier motion (Doc. No. 243) objecting to AbbVie’s Interrogatory No. 21. Id. at 3.
Finally, Boehringer asserts that its designated witnesses were properly prepared to
testify. Id. at 3-5.
Discussion
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(c)(2) prohibits instructing a deposition witness not to answer
a question except to preserve a privilege, enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or
present a motion to terminate or limit the deposition under R. 30(d)(3). Boehringer was
not preserving a privilege, but claims it was enforcing a limitation that it had sought
through a motion previously filed with the court that had not been decided. BI Opp. at 12. Boehringer did not file a motion to terminate or limit the depositions.1 Under the
Boehringer refers to the dilemma presented because I had ordered the parties not to submit any more
briefing on the subject of R. 30(b)(6) topics. BI Opp. at 2 (referring to Doc. No. 261). The Order of October
31, 2018 was entered in connection with disputes about the content of a chart I had requested
summarizing the positions of the parties on the scope of R. 30(b)(6) depositions. See Doc. No. 261. A
subsequent Order of December 27, 2018 (Doc. No. 324) provided the parties with a process for litigating
over instructions not to answer questions at a deposition. Under this Order AbbVie filed its motion (Doc.
No. 326) and Boehringer filed its response (Doc. No. 336). I have since resolved the dispute over R.
30(b)(6) topics. Doc. No. 359. AbbVie has filed objections to the Order, which are currently pending
before Judge Goldberg. Doc. No. 396.
1
2
circumstances I find that Boehringer acted in good faith, and that the purpose of the
rule will not be subverted by deciding the motion on its merits.
Turning to the merits, AbbVie does not elaborate on its argument that
questioning Dr. Daugherty about unaccused formulations might uncover evidence of
copying, from which favorable inferences might be drawn about the non-obviousness of
its inventions. AV Mot. at 2. The argument is that evidence that one of AbbVie’s
inventions or discoveries has been copied might tend to rebut a contention that prior art
made AbbVie’s patents obvious, and therefore invalid. AbbVie has made no showing
that copying has taken place in connection with the accused product. Nor has there been
any showing that copying would be more likely in connection with the development of
unaccused but related products.
It is possible that evidence of copying may turn up, but the possibility is
disproportionate to the value of such evidence, even if uncovered. “[P]roof of copying is
currently best viewed as only a weak form of circumstantial proof of non-obviousness.”
3 Moy’s Walker on Patents, at 9-130 (West, 4th Ed. 2012); see Ecolochem, Inc. v.
Southern California Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“a showing of
copying is only equivocal evidence of non-obviousness in the absence of more
compelling objective indicia of other secondary considerations.”). In the context of
biosimilar litigation under the BPCIA, an inference of non-obviousness from copying
evidence is likely to be even less compelling than usual. Cf. Santarus, Inc. v. Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 2d 427, 455 (D. Del. 2010) (copying is “not
compelling evidence of non-obviousness” due to the nature of the ANDA process in
Hatch-Waxman cases), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, Santarus, Inc. v.
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Purdue Pharma
3
Products L.P. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 377 F. App’x 978, 983 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (not
precedential) (“we do not find compelling Purdue's evidence of copying in the ANDA
context where a showing of bioequivalency is required for FDA approval.”). A kind of
“copying” is, in a sense, the foundation of the BPCIA process. An applicant must show
biosimilarity to a reference drug to qualify for the aBLA pathway to approval. The
inference as to non-obviousness from evidence of copying in this context would be
feeble, at best.
AbbVie also contends that discovery of unaccused products will bear on Humira’s
commercial success, a recognized secondary consideration.2 AV Mot. at 2. It is not
immediately apparent how discovery of non-public information about products that
may or may not be marketed by Boehringer in the future will reflect in any useful way on
the commercial success of Humira. Neither is it immediately apparent why AbbVie
needs additional proof of the overwhelming commercial success of Humira. The parties
have from time to time bandied about the annual revenues generated by Humira – an
estimated $13 billion per year. There is no legitimate dispute that Humira has been
commercially successful. Additional, marginal evidence on the subject would not be
worth the trouble it takes to collect.
I will deny AbbVie’s motion, insofar as it seeks to re-depose Dr. Daugherty. The
likely probative value of the inquiry AbbVie seeks is negligible and is outweighed by the
likelihood of unfair harm to Boehringer through the disclosure of sensitive competitive
information.
The inference is that commercial success is a consequence – at least in part – of a non-obvious invention
that introduced a previously unavailable and useful product to consumers.
2
4
As for questions about future launch plans, I ruled on AbbVie’s motion to compel
an answer to their Interrogatory No. 21, which concerned launch plans. See Doc. No.
429 (Order of February 25, 2019). I have also ruled on related R. 30(b)(6) deposition
topics. See Doc. No. 359 (Order of January 17, 2019), at 5, Topic 41 (concerning launch
plans). The Order of January 17, 2019 is presently before Judge Goldberg, who will rule
on AbbVie’s objections. As I have previously denied a deposition on launch plans (Topic
41, Order of January 17, 2019), I will deny the motion to re-depose Mr. Blanarik. If my
Order as to Topic 41 is upended, or good cause for the deposition can be shown after
proceeding with the written discovery permitted in my Order of February 25, 2019
concerning Interrogatory No. 21, AbbVie may file a motion to reconsider this denial.
As for the alleged failure to properly prepare Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(b)(6) witnesses,
the resolution of the dispute over deposition topics may go far to resolve the dispute
over whether to re-depose Drs. Buske, Happersberger, and Studt. I will deny AbbVie’s
motion with leave to reinstate the motion after Judge Goldberg’s ruling. After Judge
Goldberg’s ruling and before filing a motion to reinstate the motion to compel, counsel
for AbbVie should meet and confer with counsel for Boehringer to discuss depositions
(or re-depositions) that may be warranted.
BY THE COURT:
_s/Richard A. Lloret
RICHARD A. LLORET
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
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?