- 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
-
May 13, 2024Robins Kaplan, Robert Bennett Recognized in Elite Trial Lawyers Awards
-
April 29, 2024Robins Kaplan Mourns Death of New York Associate Waleed Abbasi
-
April 29, 2024Robins Kaplan Secures $7.75 Million Verdict in Aerosol Dust Remover Abuse Case
-
May 20, 2024The Present and Future of DEI
-
May 23, 202414th Annual Disability Justice Seminar
-
June 10-11, 20242024 Probate and Trust Law Section Conference
-
May 2024Q&A with Anthony Froio
-
April 30, 2024A World Without Non-Competes: Protecting Confidential Information and Trade Secrets Following the FTC's Ban
-
First QuarterGENERICally Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Litigation Bulletin
-
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.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Xspray Pharma AB
Sprycel®/Dasynoc® (dasatinib)
April 25, 2023
Case Name: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Xspray Pharma AB , No. CV 22-964 (RMB/MJS), 2023 WL 3354261 (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2023) (Bumb, J.)
Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Sprycel®/Dasynoc® (dasatinib) U.S. Patents Nos. 7,491,725 (“the ’725 patent”), 8,680,103 (“the ’103 patent”), and 8,242,270 (“the ’270 patent”)
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Bristol-Meyers Squibb (“BMS”) owns the patents-in-suit and sells Sprycel, a drug used to treat chronic myeloid leukemia and Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The patents-in-suit claim various crystalline forms of dasatinib. Xspray filed an ANDA seeking to market a non-crystalline (i.e., amorphous) dasatinib product under the trade name Dasynoc. In response, BMS sued Xspray for patent infringement. BMS contends that Xspray had sought approval from the FDA for a generic version of BMS’s Sprycel with 100mg dosage strength. Xspray contends that it applied for a NDA, not an ANDA, because it intends to market a new and improved drug and not merely a generic version of BMS’s reference drug. Xspray also filed an amendment to its NDA to include five additional dosage strengths: 15 mg, 36 mg, 50 mg, 57 mg, and 70 mg. BMS sought to challenge these as well and the actions were consolidated.
Xspray filed for motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Dasynoc is not covered by BMS’s patents on specific crystalline forms. BMS argued that the court should deny Xspray’s motion because the pleading standard for this Hatch-Waxman action has already been met given BMS’s specific allegations that Xspray filed a NDA relying on BMS’s application for Sprycel. The court found that Xspray’s NDA is not properly before the court in deciding the pending motion. The court also found BMS’s claims of patent infringement in a Hatch Waxman lawsuit to be plausible and that Xspray was fairly put on notice of the claims asserted by BMS in the amended complaint and the grounds upon which they rest.
Why BMS Prevailed: In ruling on a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court relied on the Twombly standard, asking whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claim. Xspray was unsuccessful in trying to argue for an exception to the general rule prohibiting the consideration of documents outside of the amended complaint. The exception is for documents integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint.
The court agreed with BMS that they had not relied on any specific portion of Xspray’s NDA in their amended complaint. Rather, the references were simply general references to the document as a whole. The court thus found that the NDA was not properly before it for purposes of deciding the motion.
The court also denied Xspray’s argument that BMS’s complaint did not state a plausible claim of infringement due to the lack of a specific explanation of how the infringement was to occur. Xspray’s notification to BMS that it made certain Paragraph IV certifications to the FDA regarding potential infringement of BMS’s Orange Book-listed patents fairly put Xspray on notice of the claims asserted by BMS in the amended complaint and the grounds upon which they rest.
BMS convinced the court that there remained a question of material fact regarding the levels of crystalline forms of dasatinib present in Dasynoc. BMS’s factual assertions in the complaint, despite being challenged by some of Xspray’s assertions within the NDA, were important to the court in denying the motion and allowing the suit to proceed. Where the assertions in the complaint conflict with the contents of the NDA, the allegations in the complaint must prevail. Finally, Xspray’s case cites failed to convince the court that a motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted based upon the contents of an NDA, which was neither integral to nor specifically referenced in an amended complaint, particularly when such contents are in direct conflict with the allegations and claims set forth in the amended complaint, as well as other parts and documents of the same NDA.
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.