Hospira, Inc. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al
Filing
60
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 35 MOTION to Sever and Transfer. filed by New York University, Janssen Biotech, Inc., NYU Langone Medical Center, 37 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief May Be Granted. For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted. This order moots the pending motion to sever or transfer. In light of the Court's dismissal of Celltrion's claims against Kennedy, Hospira's claims against Kennedy are dismissed for the reasons stated above and in the Celltrion order. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motions and close this case. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 12/1/2014) (js) Modified on 12/1/2014 (js).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------)(
HOSPIRA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
14 Civ. 7049 (PAC)
-against-
OPINION & ORDER
JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC.; NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY; NYU LANGONE MEDICAL
CENTER; and THE KENNEDY TRUST FOR
RHEUMATOLOGY RESEARCH,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------)(
HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge:
The pursuit of FDA approval for a biosimilar version of the rheumatoid arthritis
treatment Remicade has triggered a lot of litigation, but none of it is ripe for federal court
jurisdiction. Defendants Janssen and NYU move to dismiss the complaint; for the reasons stated
below, and in the Court's Order in the related case, Celltrion Healthcare Co. v. Kennedy Trust
for Rheumatology Research, 14 Civ. 2256, the motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint is
dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Hospira, "the world's leading provider of injectable drugs and infusion
technologies," is preparing to offer for sale a biosimilar version of infliximab, currently sold by
Janssen as Remicade. Complaint ("Compl."), if 9. In 2009, Hospira entered into an agreement
with Celltrion to co-exclusively market infliximab under the name Inflectra. Id.
1
if 20.
On
August 8, 201 4, Celltrion filed its abbreviated biologic license application ("aBLA") on August
8, 2014. 1 Id.
if 29.
No other biosimilar has ever been approved by the FDA.
In order to enable sales of Inflectra as soon as it receives FDA approval, Hospira seeks a
declaration that the following patents are invalid: the '471 patent, the '3 96 patent (collectively,
the "Janssen patents")2, the '442 patent, the '537 patent, and the ' 120 patent (collectively, the
"Kennedy patents").
DISCUSSION
The motion to dismiss is granted for many of the same reasons as those discussed in the
Court's dismissal order in Celltrion. Indeed, the instant case presents an even more compelling
reason for dismissal than that presented in Celltrion. Hospira seeks to benefit from the BPCIA
where it can, and ignore those features of the BP CIA that hinder its ambitions. For the fo llowing
reasons, Hospira cannot have it both ways.
For example, Hospira asserts that it has engaged in meaningful preparation to sell
Inflectra sufficient to show the existence of a justiciable case or controversy. See Compl. irr 20i
31; Hospira's Memorandum ofLaw in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Pl.
Mem."), at 18-21. In support of this assertion, Hospira treats Celltrion like its alter ego, and cites
to Celltrion's preparations ofRemsima. Id. Yet in response to Janssen's argument that this
dispute should be resolved by means of the BPCIA' s dispute resolution procedures, Hospira
minimizes its coextensive relationship with Celltrion and declares that because it is not the
applicant under the BPCIA, it need not engage in its procedures. This argument is a microcosm
1
This fact was not taken into account in the Court's opinion in Ce/ltrion, because Celltrion filed its complaint prior
to this factual development, and subject matter jurisdiction is assessed at the time of the fili ng of the complaint.
2
Because Celltrion did not name Janssen as a defendant in the Celltrion case, these patents are not involved in that
litigation.
2
of the larger tension in Hospira's complaint: it seeks to utilize the BPCIA pathway for approval
of its biosimilar drug, yet disavows the BPCIA's authority over patent disputes.
Despite Hospira' s best attempts to twist the BPCIA to serve its interests without
hindering its pursuit oflitigation, this effort fails. As the Court found in Celltrion, even if the
Court were to find that Hospira had engaged in meaningful preparation and that Janssen had
sufficiently demonstrated an intent to pursue its patent rights against Hospira, which it has not,
the existence of the BPCIA mechanisms for dispute resolution counsels against the exercise of
jurisdiction over this complaint. The BPCIA purposefully ties the dispute resolution process to
events throughout the biosimilar approval process, ensuring that full information exchange
occurs at relevant and crucial periods during the approval process. As defendants argue,
adjudicating this case would enable any biosimilar developer to partner with another distributor
and thereby skirt the dispute resolution procedures Congress purposefully enacted for use in such
situations. Indeed, Hospira's argument that it is not an applicant simply suggests that Hospira's
claims are too attenuated from any crystallized dispute between the relevant parties, further
demonstrating the lack of a justiciable case or controversy.
The Court notes that the parties have informed the Court that Celltrion has voluntarily
dismissed its identical suit against Janssen in the District of Massachusetts and has begun
engaging in the information exchange procedures of the BPCIA. See Def. Letter of Nov. 5, 2014
(Dkt. 58); Pl. Letter of Nov. 11 , 2014 (Dkt. 59). Should this procedure lead to the resolution of
Celltrion's claims against Janssen, it is unclear what claims would remain for Hospira to pursue
against Janssen.
3
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted. This order moots the
pending motion to sever or transfer. In light of the Court's dismissal of Celltrion's claims
against Kennedy, Hospira's claims against Kennedy are dismissed for the reasons stated above
and in the Celltrion order. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motions and
close this case.
SO ORDERED
Dated: New York, New York
December 1, 2014
PAULA. CROTTY
United States District Judge
4
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?