- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
December 5, 2024Jake Holdreith Named to Twin Cities Business Top 100
-
December 4, 2024Robins Kaplan Obtains $10.5 Million Post-Verdict in Landmark Aerosol Dust Remover Abuse Case
-
December 2, 2024Robins Kaplan LLP Announces 2025 Partners
-
December 11, 20242024 Year in Review: eDiscovery and Artificial Intelligence
-
December 12, 2024Strategies for Licensing AI: A Litigation Perspective
-
December 2024A Landmark Victory for Disabled Homeless Veterans: Q&A with the Trial Team
-
November 8, 2024Trademark tensions on the track: Court upholds First Amendment protections in Haas v. Steiner
-
November 8, 2024Destination Skiing And The DOJ's Mountain Merger Challenge
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
Allergan Holdings Unlimited Co. v. MSN Labs. Private Ltd.
ViberziĀ® (eluxadoline)
July 17, 2024
Case Name: Allergan Holdings Unlimited Co. v. MSN Labs. Private Ltd., Civ. No. 23-794-RGA, 2024 WL 3444368 (D. Del. July 17, 2024) (Andrews, J.)
Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Viberzi® (eluxadoline); U.S. Patent No. 11,484,527 (“the ’527 patent”)
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: The ’527 patent belongs to a patent family covering various inventions related to eluxadoline and claims priority to an application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,675,587 (“the ’587 patent”). From a continuation of the same patent application, Plaintiffs also obtained U.S. Patent No. 10,188,632 (“the ’632 patent”). Plaintiffs sued Sun in 2019, asserting the ’587 and ’632 patents, after Sun filed an ANDA seeking approval to market generic eluxadoline (“the 19-1727 litigation”). Over the course of the case, Plaintiffs eventually asserted eight patents during the 19-1727 litigation. The application leading to the ’527 patent was filed on December 8, 2021. The ’527 patent issued on November 1, 2022, and covers methods of treatment by administering eluxadoline.
On July 21, 2023, Plaintiffs asserted the ’527 patent against Sun, which action has since been consolidated into the present case along with Plaintiffs’ actions against MSN. On January 19, 2024, Sun filed its Amended Answer asserting a counterclaim of prosecution laches (Count III counterclaim), an affirmative defense of unenforceability based on prosecution laches and/or unclean hands (Seventh Affirmative Defense), and an affirmative defense of patent misuse (Eighth Affirmative Defense). Plaintiffs moved to dismiss those counterclaims and defenses, and the court agreed.
Why Allergan Prevailed: Count III Counterclaim. Sun alleged that it was prejudiced as a result of Plaintiffs’ delay in prosecuting the ’527 patent. Specifically, Sun alleged that it faced prejudice from the delay because it “invested time and resources seeking to commercialize generic versions of Plaintiffs’ Viberzi® brand eluxadoline tablets” and “because Allergan’s delay has unnecessarily resulted in increased costs and duplicative litigation.” The ’527 patent does not claim the eluxadoline tablet; instead, it claims a method of treatment involving the eluxadoline tablet. Therefore, Sun’s claims that it invested time and resources into commercializing the tablets is not equivalent to allegations that it invested in, worked on, or used the claimed technology. Moreover, increased litigation costs are also insufficient to demonstrate prejudice. In this case, there was no subversion of the Hatch-Waxman Act by extended litigation because Sun is precluded from launching its generic product until July 7, 2028, in any event.
Seventh Affirmative Defense. This affirmative defense raises the issues of prosecution laches and unclean hands. The prosecution laches defense fails for the same reason as the Count III Counterclaim. Sun alleged that “Allergan is fully aware that the ’527 patent and the similar patents being prosecuted are invalid and should never have been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office” but still sought “to enforce these patents—to harass Sun as part of an egregious case of misuse of the statutory patent system.” Specifically, Sun stated, “Despite representing to the Patent Office that ‘the only way to truly understand how food will affect the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics of a drug is to conduct a food effect study,’ the inventors never conducted a food effect study on eluxadoline.” Plaintiffs’ unclean hands defense theory, in substance, is based on inequitable conduct before the PTO. As Sun’s affirmative defense sounds in fraud, it must satisfy the heightened Rule 9(b) pleading standard, which it did not.
Eighth Affirmative Defense. Sun’s patent misuse defense theory relies on the same factual allegations as its unclean hands defense. Thus, because Sun failed to comply with the Rule 9(b) pleading requirements, the court stuck Sun’s eighth affirmative defense.
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.