Ortho-Mcneil Pharmaceutical v. Kali Laboratories

• Decision Date: 05 April 2007
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 04-0886 (JCL).,Civil Action No. 02-5707 (JCL).
• Citation: 482 F.Supp.2d 478
• Parties: ORTHO-MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. KALI LABORATORIES, INC., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Defendants and Counterclaimants. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. Teva Pharmaceutica Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals Usa, Inc. Barr Laboratories, Inc., Defendants and Counterclaimants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

Page 478

482 F.Supp.2d 478

ORTHO-MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. KALI LABORATORIES, INC., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Defendants and Counterclaimants.

Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. Teva Pharmaceutica Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals Usa, Inc. Barr Laboratories, Inc., Defendants and Counterclaimants.

Civil Action No. 02-5707 (JCL).

Civil Action No. 04-0886 (JCL).

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

April 5, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

David T. Pritikin, Lisa A. Schneider, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, Jeffrey P. Kushan, David A. Steffes, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, Michael D. Hatcher, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX, Douglas Scott Eakeley, John R. Middleton, Matthew Jonathan. Atlas, David Leit, Lowenstein Sandler PC, Roseland, NJ, for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant.

Edgar H. Haug, Daniel G. Brown, Pearl T. L. Siew, Dillon Kim, Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP, New York City, NY, Jeffrey S. Soos, Arnold B. Calmann, Saiber Schlesinger Satz & Goldstein, LLC, Newark, NJ, for Defendants and Counterclaimants Kali Laboratories, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.

John L. North, William L. Warren, Norman E.B. Minnear, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, Atlanta, GA, Allyn Z. Lite, Michael E. Patunas, Lite Depalma Greenberg & Rivas, LLC, Newark, NJ, for Defendants and Counterclaimants Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Barr Laboratories, Inc.

OPINION

LIFLAND, District Judge.

In these two consolidated patent infringement actions, Defendant generic drug manufacturers Kali Laboratories, Inc. ("Kali"), Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (collectively "Par"),¹ Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively "Teva"), and Barr Laboratories, Inc. ("Barr"),² move for summary judgment against Plaintiff Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. ("Ortho-McNeil"). Ortho-McNeil asserts that Defendants have infringed, under the Hatch-Waxman Act, its patent covering the pain-relief drug it sells under the name-brand, Ultracet. Defendants dispute Ortho-McNeil's infringement claims, and counterclaim that, in any event, Ortho-McNeil's patent is invalid. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant summary judgment of non-infringement to Kali, and deny summary judgment of nori-infringement to Teva/Barr. Furthermore, the Court will grant summary judgment of infringement in favor of Ortho-McNeil against Teva! Barr. As for Defendants' invalidity counterclaims, the Court will deny summary judgment of invalidity to Kali on the grounds of indefiniteness and the public-use bar. However, the Court concludes that Claim 6 of the '691 patent is invalid for anticipation, and for obviousness, and thus, will grant summary judgment of invalidity to Teva/Barr and Kali.

I. Background

A. Ortho — McNeil's Patented Invention

United States Patent No. 5,336,691 ("the '691 patent") contains 15 claims, several of which disclose a pharmaceutical composition comprising the analgesic compounds tramadol and acetaminophen combined at various weight ratios. The '691 patent inventors found that when administered together, certain amounts of tramadol and acetaminophen exhibit "synergistic" effects. In other words, the analgesic effectiveness of the two drugs in combination is greater than the sum of their parts, as predicted by data demonstrating the individual effectiveness of each drug. Claim 6, the only claim Ortho-McNeil asserts as infringed, reads: "[A] pharmaceutical composition [comprising a tramadol material and acetaminophen, wherein the ratio of the tramadol material to acetaminophen is a weight ratio of] about 1:5."³ '691 patent, col. 11, 11. 18-34.

At first, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") rejected the '691 patent's claims for obviousness in view of the patent covering tramadol, U.S. Patent No. 3,652,589 ("the '589 patent" or "the Flick patent"). (Kushan Decl., Ex. 10, at KAL 0016264.) The examiner pointed out that the Flick patent disclosed tramadol's "considerable therapeutic value when used in combination with other therapeutically active agents whereby frequently a synergistic effect is observed," and reasoned that it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine tramadol and acetaminophen in varying amounts to achieve synergistic effects in treating pain. (Kushan Decl., Ex. 10, at KAL 0016264 (quoting '589 patent, col. 12, ll. 45-48))

After the inventors counterargued that it was not obvious that tramadol and acetaminophen would exhibit synergistic analgesic activity in the particular weight ratios claimed, the PTO allowed the claims. (Kushan Decl., Ex. 10, KAL016272.) The '691 patent issued on August 9, 1994 to coinventors Robert Raffa and Jeffrey Vaught, and was assigned to McNeilab, Inc., Ortho-McNeil's predecessor in interest.

On the basis of the '691 patent, Ortho-McNeil developed Ultracet, which contains one part tramadol hydrochloride⁴ (37.5 milligrams ("mg")), to 8.67 parts acetaminophen (325 mg). Ultracet was approved for sale by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in 2001.

B. Kali's and Teva/Bares Abbreviated New Drug Applications

In fall 2002, Kali filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") with the FDA seeking approval to sell a generic version of Ultracet containing the identical 1:8.67 weight ratio of tramadol to acetaminophen. (Kushan Decl., Ex. 24.) Kali's ANDA included a certification under section 505(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) of the Federal Food and Drug Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), 21 U.S.C. § 335 ("Paragraph IV certification"), alleging that the sale of its generic would either not infringe the '691 patent, or that the '691 patent was invalid, or both. Kali notified Ortho-McNeil of its Paragraph IV certification as required under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(B), and Ortho-McNeil responded by filing an infringement suit against Kali under the Hatch-Waxman Act, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A). Kali denies infringing the '691 patent, and asserts, as affirmative defenses and in counterclaims, that the '691 patent is invalid as anticipated, for obviousness, for indefiniteness, and under the public-use bar. After discovery, Kali filed the instant motion for summary judgment. On April 22, 2005, the 30-month stay on FDA approval of Kali's ANDA expired, see 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(B)(iii)(I)-(III), the FDA approved the ANDA, and Kali began marketing its generic form of Ultracet.⁵

In a separate suit, Ortho-McNeil filed a Hatch-Waxman Act infringement action against Teva on February 25, 2004, after Teva filed an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking to market a generic form of Ultracet. Like Kali, Teva responded by denying infringement, and by asserting a counterclaim alleging the invalidity of Claim 6. Teva/Barr now move for summary judgment on those grounds. On July 26, 2006, Barr began marketing its Ultracet generic after the 30-month stay on FDA approval expired.⁶

On July 10, 2006, the two cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes.

C. The '691 Patent Reissue Application

On January 20, 2004, during the discovery phase of its suit against Kali, and about one month prior to filing suit against Teva/Barr, Ortho-McNeil filed a reissue application with the PTO for the '691 patent, admitting that certain claims were anticipated by the prior art. Ortho-McNeil explained to the PTO that "it was not appreciated, by the inventors and the attorney prosecuting the underlying patent application [for the '691 patent], that a composition within the scope of at least claim 1 as issued appears to have been disclosed in at least [the Flick patent]." (Brown Decl., Ex. 10, Reissue Appl. Decl. of Jan. 20, 2004.) The reissue application canceled all claims of the '691 patent, except for Claims 6 and 15, and applied for dozens of new claims.

On August 1, 2006, the PTO reissued the '691 patent as U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE39,221 E ("the RE221 patent"). The RE221 patent retains Claim 6, only now recast as an independent claim,⁷ and adds 62 additional new claims.⁸ As required by the FDCA, Ortho-McNeil surrendered the '691 patent to the PTO. Because Claim 6 of the RE221 patent is "substantially identical" to Claim 6 of the '691 patent, the surrender of the '691 patent does not abate the current action. See 35 U.S.C. § 252. Ortho-McNeil amended its complaints in both actions to allege that Defendants' ANDAs infringed Claim 6 of the RE221 patent, and Kali and Teva/13arr amended their counterclaims to allege the invalidity of Claim 6 of the RE221 patent.⁹

II. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine, issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56; Serbin v. Bora Corp., 96 F.3d 66, 69 n. 2 (3d Cir.1996). When evaluating a summary judgment motion, the Court must "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party." Armour v. County of Beaver, 271 F.3d 417, 420 (3d Cir2001) (internal quotations omitted). The burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists rests initially on the moving party. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Huang v. BP Amoco Corp., 271 F.3d 560, 564 (3d Cir.2001). Once the moving party has made a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v....