THE MEDICINES COMPANY v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD. et al

Filing 81

MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying 51 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 3/11/2013. (eaj)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
THE MEDICINES COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.:
I 12456(PGS)(DEA)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD., DR.
REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC., and
GLAND PHARMA, INC.,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 51) of the Court’s
October 12, 2012 order denying a motion for summaryjudgment (ECF No. 48). The Plaintiff asserts
two arguments.
First, Defendant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories argues that the Court focused on the process used
to make Bivalirudin and overlooked facts that demonstrated that Plaintiff sold Bivalirudin before the
critical date that met each limitation of the asserted claims. More specifically defendant argues:
Here, had the Court not overlooked the Angiomax® product sold by
plaintiff before the critical date (rather than focusing on the process
used to make that product), the Court would have concluded that the
asserted claims were anticipated by the plaintiff’s sale ofAngiomax®
before the critical date, Further, had the Court applied the correct
legal standard for anticipation under the onsale bar, it would have
concluded that the sale of a single batch of Angiornax® meeting the
claim limitations was all that was needed to anticipate the claims,
Second, Dr. Reddy asserts that the Court erred by employing the standard of proof for
inherent anticipation rather than the standard for onsale bar of a patent.

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and L. Civ. R. 7.1(I). The
“extraordinary remedy” of reconsideration is “to be granted sparingly.” A.K. Stamping

co., I,.,

.

Instrument Specialties co,, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 627, 662 (D.N.J. 2000) (quoting NL Indus., Inc.,
v. commercial Union Ins. co., 935 F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996)). The Rule “does not
contemplate a Court looking to matters which were not originally presented.” Damiano v. Sony
Music Entertainment, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 623, 634 (D.N.J. 1996) (quoting Florham Park chevron,
Inc., v. Chevron US.A., Jhc., 680 F. Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J. 1988)).
The Third Circuit has held that the “purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” ffarsco C’orp. v. Ziotincki,

779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171(1986). “Reconsideration motions,
however, may not be used to relitigate old matters, nor to raise arguments or present evidence that
could have been raised prior to the entry ofjudgment.” NL Indus., Inc., 935 F. Supp. at 516; See
Wright, Miller & Kane, Fed. Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d

§ 2810.1.

Such motions will only be

granted where (1) an intervening change in the law has occurred, (2) new evidence not previously
available has emerged, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent a manifest injustice
arises. See, North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995,).
11.
With regard to the first issue, the Court did not overlook the allegation of Plaintiff that it sold

Bivalirudin before the critical date that met all limitations of the asserted claims. Instead, the Court
found factual issues existed that prevented making such a conclusion. The Court’s distinction was
that a new process produced a substantially different product from the original product because the
new product had substantially less Asp levels. As such, what was sold before was different than
9
what was sold afier the critical date.

With regard to the second issue, the on-sale bar standard was used by the Court in making
its decision not the inherent anticipation standard as the Plaintiff alleges. For example, the Court

noted that:

In order to anticipate under the on sale bar, the subject of barring
activity must meet “each of the limitations of the claim.” Sea/tech,
Inc. v, Retec/Thtra, LLC, 178 F,3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir, 1999).
(10/12/12 T8, 12-14).

In addition, in the introductory paragraph of the oral opinion, the Court noted:
This is a motion for summary judgment, seeking to invalidate the
patent because it was anticipated; that is, the new product was the
same as the old product that was sold prior to the critical date. See, 35
U.S.C. Section 102(b).
(10/12/12 T2, 1-6)
Hence, the Court used the on sale bar standard to determine the case; but as the Court
emphasized, there are numerous fact questions that arise no matter what standard is used. Based on
the above, the Court does not see any reason to reconsider the oral opinion.
ORDER
IT IS on thish day of March, 2013
ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

(L
PETER G. SHERIDAN, U,S,D,J,