HORIZON PHARMA, INC. et al v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES INC. et al

Filing 117

OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 107 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 7/25/18. (cm, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_______________________________________
:
HORIZON PHARMA, INC., HORIZON
:
Civil Action No. 15-3324 (SRC)
PHARMA USA, INC., and POZEN INC.,
:
:
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
(consolidated for discovery
:
purposes with Civil Action
DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
:
Nos. 16-4918, 16-9035,
and DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES,
:
15-3327, 16-4921, 15-3326,
:
and 16-4920)
Defendants.
:
_______________________________________:
:
HORIZON PHARMA, INC., HORIZON
:
PHARMA USA, INC., and POZEN INC.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
:
MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED, and
:
MYLAN, INC.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________________:
:
HORIZON PHARMA, INC., HORIZON
:
PHARMA USA, INC., and POZEN INC.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
LUPIN LTD. and LUPIN
:
PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________________:

CHESLER, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before this Court on the motion to stay pending inter partes review by
Plaintiffs Horizon Pharma, Inc., Horizon Pharma USA, Inc., and Pozen Inc. (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
These cases, consolidated for discovery purposes, arise from Hatch-Waxman litigation
regarding patents related to the drug Vimovo®. Plaintiffs hold the patents and the various
Defendants are pharmaceutical companies which have filed ANDA applications to produce
generic versions. The first round of litigation involved two patents. This Court entered final
judgment of patent infringement in favor of Plaintiffs, and Defendants have appealed the
judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; this judgment precludes any generic
launch prior to May of 2022.
During the first round of litigation, nine additional patents covering Vimovo® issued.
Litigation involving six of those patents, those descended from the Round I patents, has been
stayed pending the abovementioned appeal. Litigation on another patent has been stayed as well,
leaving litigation of two patents presently active. U. S. Patent Nos. 9,220,698 and 9,393,208 are
the subject of this motion.
Plaintiffs report that petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) have been filed challenging
both the ‘698 and the ‘208 patents, and are presently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board. Mylan has filed IPR2017-01995, challenging the ‘968 patent, and IPR2018-00272,
challenging the ‘208 patent. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories has filed IPR2018-00894, seeking review
of the ‘968 patent and to join Mylan’s challenge to the ‘968 patent; Plaintiffs have opposed the
motion for joinder. Plaintiffs move for a stay of this litigation during the pendency of the inter

2

partes review process. Plaintiffs contend that a stay will not prejudice Defendants and that the
IPR decisions will simplify the issues before this Court.
In opposition, Defendants argue: 1) this case is very close to being ready for resolution
on summary judgment; 2) the IPRs will decide only a fraction of the issues; and 3) a stay would
highly prejudice Defendants. This Court finds the three points persuasive. As to the first point,
fact discovery has closed, expert discovery will be completed within a few days, and Defendants
state that they anticipate filing a motion for summary judgment in short order. As to the second
point, the IPR proceedings concern invalidity defenses of anticipation and obviousness, and will
not address Defendants’ defenses of noninfringement, indefiniteness, lack of enablement, and
lack of written description. As to the third point, a stay could delay these consolidated cases by
one to two years, which is certainly substantial prejudice to Defendants.1
Courts in this district generally consider three factors when determining to grant a stay:
“1) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the
non-moving party; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case;
and (3) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set.”
Stryker Trauma S.A. v. Synthes (USA), 2008 WL 877848, at *1 (D.N.J. 2008). Plaintiffs have
failed to persuade this Court that a stay at this juncture is in the interest of justice. Instead, it
appears that the IPR process may resolve only a few issues, that it might do so at the cost of a
substantial delay to Defendants, at a time when the case is poised to move forward with a motion

1

In reply, Plaintiffs argue that, since no Defendant can launch prior to 2022, delay cannot
work any prejudice. This, however, is the state of affairs only until the Federal Circuit decides
the appeal. If the case is stayed and the Federal Circuit reverses the judgment, the delay will
surely have prejudiced Defendants.
3

for summary judgment. The motion to stay will be denied.
For these reasons,
IT IS on this 25th day of July, 2018
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to stay (Docket Entry No. 107) is DENIED.

s/ Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER, U.S.D.J.

4