- 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
-
March 26, 2024Ronald Schutz, Brendan Johnson Named to Forbes Top 200 Lawyers in the United States
-
March 21, 2024Robins Kaplan Firm Members Appointed to Law360 Editorial Boards
-
March 20, 2024Brandon Vaughn Inducted into The International Society of Barristers
-
April 5, 2024Mass Torts Made Perfect
-
April 17, 2024American Antitrust Institute Virtual CLE Lunch & Learn
-
May 2-3, 2024ACI Advanced Forum on Managed Care Disputes and Litigation
-
March 22, 2024‘In re Cellect’:
-
March 14, 2024How Many Cases Have You Tried to a Verdict?
-
March 2024Do We Have to Share That Information? Attorney-Client Privilege in the Multi-Entity Context
-
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.
Horizon Meds. LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Inc.
Relying on a Federal Circuit decision that invalidated for lacking an adequate written description a patent from which the patents-in-suit descend, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction for failing to show a likelihood of success on the merits.
October 18, 2019
Case Name: Horizon Meds. LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Inc., Civil Action No. 15-3324 (SRC), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218330 (D.N.J. Dec. 18, 2019) (Chesler, J)
Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Vimovo® (naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium); U.S. Patents Nos. 8,858,996 (“the ’996 patent”) and 9,161,920 (“the ’920 patent”)
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented to District Court: Vimovo is an oral drug formulation used to treat symptoms of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. The patents-in-suit all cover a method to achieve pain-and-symptom relief with a reduced risk of developing gastrointestinal damage such as ulcers, erosions, and hemorrhages. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Dr. Reddy’s from launching its ANDA product. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, as plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits against Dr. Reddy’s challenges to the patents-in-suit’s validity and enforceability.
Why Dr. Reddy’s Prevailed: In its opposition, Dr. Reddy’s challenged the validity of the patents-in-suit, arguing that the asserted claims lacked adequate written description. Dr. Reddy based this argument on Nuvo Pharms. (Ir.) Designated Activity Co. v. Dr. Reddy's Labs. Inc., 923 F.3d 1368, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2019), in which the Federal Circuit invalidated U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907, which shares a parent application with the patents-in-suit. Specifically, Dr. Reddy’s contended that, as in Nuvo, the court should construe the asserted claims to require effective uncoated esomeprazole, and as construed, the asserted claims fail to meet the written-description requirement. Plaintiffs contended that the all claim language should have its ordinary meaning.
The court noted that, as to the likelihood of success on the merits, the dispute turned on the question of how the asserted claims should be construed in the preliminary-injunction context, and that the court need not reach a conclusive resolution of the issue. The Federal Circuit has called this a “rolling claim construction.” Because Dr. Reddy’s raised a substantial question of patent invalidity at the preliminary-injunction stage, which the Plaintiffs did not show lacked substantial merit, the court denied plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief. Relying on Nuvo, the court noted, “it is a common-sense proposition that, if [Plaintiffs] were unable to persuade the Federal Circuit that the shared specification—shared with the ’996 and ’920 patents, the parties agreed—provides adequate written description support for a claim limitation of effective uncoated PPI, they are unlikely to succeed in defeating the same validity challenge in this case.”
Related Professionals
Christopher A. Pinahs
Partner
Haroon N. Mian
Associate
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.