throbber
Case 1:15-cv-00697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 133
`Case 1:15-cv-OO697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 15 PagelD #: 133
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`HOSPIRA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 15-697-RGA
`
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`HOSPIRA’S ANSWER TO AMNEAL’S COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”), answers the allegations made in the below numbered
`
`paragraphs of the Answer and Counterclaims filed by Defendant Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC
`
`on September 1, 2015, as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Amneal is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of
`1.
`Delaware, having a principal place of business at 400 Crossing Boulevard, Third Floor,
`Bridgewater, New Jersey, 08807.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted, on information and belief.
`
`On information and belief, Hospira is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`2.
`place of business at 275 North Field Drive, Lake Forest, Illinois 60045.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Admitted.
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 134
`Case 1:15-cv-OO697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 15 PagelD #: 134
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`These counterclaims concerning US. Patent Nos. 8,242,158 (“the ‘ 158 patent”);
`3.
`8,338,470 (“the ‘470 patent”); 8,455,527 (“the ‘527 patent”); and 8,648,106 (“the ‘106 patent”)
`(collectively “the patents-in-suit”) arise under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201
`and 2202 and under the United States Patent Laws, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that Amneal purports to file counterclaims arising under the
`
`Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and under the United States Patent
`
`Laws, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq, concerning US Patent Nos. 8,242,158 (“the ‘158 patent”);
`
`8,338,470 (“the ‘470 patent”); 8,455,527 (“the ‘527 patent”); and 8,648,106 (“the ‘106 patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “patents—in-suit”).
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a),
`4.
`1338(a) and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Admitted that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Amneal’s
`
`Counterclaims during the pendency of Hospira’s infringement claim. Hospira denies the
`
`remaining allegations of this paragraph.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Hospira because it is a Delaware
`5.
`corporation, has availed itself of the rights and privileges of this forum by bringing this action in
`this District, and conducts substantial business in, and has regular and systematic contact with,
`this District.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Hospira for the
`
`purposes of this action. Hospira denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400, and because
`6.
`Hospira filed this suit in this District.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Admitted.
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 135
`Case 1:15-cv-OO697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 3 of 15 PagelD #: 135
`
`THE CONTROVERSY
`
`7.
`
`Amneal repeats and re-alleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as fully set forth
`
`ANSWER. Hospira incorporates herein its responses set forth above in paragraphs 1-
`
`herein.
`
`6.
`
`This is an action based on an actual controversy between Counterclaim Plaintiff
`8.
`Amneal and Hospira, concerning the invalidity and/or non-infringement of the patents—in-suit,
`and Amneal’s right to continue to seek approval of its ANDA No. 207551 (also referred to herein
`as “Amneal’s ANDA”) for Dexmedetomidine Hydrochloride in 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection,
`4 mcg/mL, 50 mL and 100 mL single dose vials (“Amneal’s Proposed ANDA Products”), and
`upon approval by the FDA, to manufacture, use, sell and offer to sell and import into the United
`States Amneal’s Proposed ANDA Products.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that during the pendency of Hospira’s claims for infringement of
`
`the patents-in-suit against Amneal, there is an actual controversy between Hospira and Amneal
`
`regarding the infringement and validity of the patents-in-suit and Amneal’s ANDA No. 207551
`
`for Dexmedetomidine Hydrochloride in 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, 4 mcg/mL, 50 mL and
`
`100 mL single dose vials (“ANDA Products”), seeking approval by the FDA to manufacture, use,
`
`sell, offer to sell, and import into the United States the ANDA Products. Hospira denies the
`
`remaining allegations of this paragraph.
`
`Amneal has submitted Amneal’s ANDA to the United States Food and Drug
`9.
`Administration (“FDA”) for listing in the FDA’s publication, Approved Drug Products with
`Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (“the Orange Book”), containing a certification under 21
`CPR. § 314.94(a)(12)(i)(A)(4) and 21 U.S.C. § 355G)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) (“Paragraph IV”) of the
`Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (“Hatch-Waxman Act”) of 1984 to the
`FDA seeking approval to market, manufacture, use, sell, and offer to sell Amneal’s Proposed
`ANDA Products.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that in its June 26, 2015, letter to Hospira, Amneal stated that it
`
`submitted ANDA No. 207551 with the FDA, seeking regulatory approval for its proposed ANDA
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 136
`Case 1:15-cv-OO697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 4 of 15 PagelD #: 136
`
`Products.
`
`It is further admitted that the June 26, 2015 letter stated that the ANDA contained a
`
`Paragraph IV certification. Hospira denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.
`
`The ‘158 patent indicates on its face that it was issued by the USPTO on August
`10.
`14, 2012, is entitled “Dexmedetomidine Premix Formulation,” and that Priyanka Roychowdhury
`and Robert A. Cedergren are listed as inventors.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Admitted.
`
`The ‘470 patent indicates on its face that it was issued by the USPTO on
`11.
`December 25, 2012 , is entitled “Dexmedetomidine Premix Formulation,” and that Priyanka
`Roychowdhury and Robert A. Cedergren are listed as inventors.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Admitted.
`
`The ‘527 patent indicates on its face that it was issued by the USPTO on June 4,
`12.
`2013, is entitled “Methods of Treatment Using a Dexmedetomidine Premix Formulation,” and
`that Priyanka Roychowdhury and Robert A. Cedergren are listed as inventors.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Admitted.
`
`The ‘108 patent indicates on its face that it was issued by the USPTO on February
`13.
`11, 2014, is entitled “Dexmedetomidine Premix Formulation,” and that Priyanka Roychowdhury
`and Robert A. Cedergren are listed as inventors.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Admitted.1
`
`Hospira has represented that one or more claims of the patents—in-suit relates to its
`14.
`commercially marketed product PRECEDEXTM, which contains the active ingredient
`dexmedetomidine hydrochloride.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Admitted.
`
`1 Amneal’s allegation mistakenly refers to “[t]he ‘108 patent.” Hospira provides its response
`with the understanding that the allegation concerns the ‘106 patent that is at issue in this case
`rather than any “‘ 108 patent.”
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 137
`Case 1:15-cv-OO697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 5 of 15 PagelD #: 137
`
`15.
`
`Hospira alleges that it purportedly owns and has the right to enforce the patents-
`
`in-suit.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that Hospira owns and has the right to enforce the patents-in-suit
`
`and has alleged as such. Hospira denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.
`
`Hospira alleges that it is the holder of approved NDA No. 21038 for
`16.
`PRECEDEXTM (“Hospira’s NDA”).
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Hospira has alleged that one or more claims of the patents-in-suit would be
`17.
`infringed by Amneal’s Proposed ANDA Products, and the filing ofAmneal’s ANDA constitutes
`infringement of the patents-in—suit.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Admitted.
`
`By letter dated June 26, 2015 Amneal notified Hospira that it had submitted to the
`18.
`FDA a Paragraph IV certification stating that the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or
`importation ofAmneal’s Proposed ANDA Products would not infringe any valid claim of the
`patents-in—suit.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that Amneal’s letter, which notified Hospira that Amneal’s
`
`ANDA No. 207551 included a certification stating that the manufacture, use, sale or offer for
`
`sale within the United States, or importation into the United States, of AMNEAL’S ANDA
`
`Product will not directly or indirectly infringe any valid claim of US. Patent Nos. 8,242,158;
`
`8,338,470; 8,455,527 and 8,648,106, was dated June 26, 2015. Hospira denies the remaining
`
`allegations of this paragraph.
`
`On or about August 11, 2015, Hospira filed a complaint against Amneal in this
`19.
`district alleging infringement of the patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(e)(2)(A), 271(a),
`271(b), and 271(c).
`
`ANSWER. Admitted.
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 138
`Case 1:15-cv-OO697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 6 of 15 PagelD #: 138
`
`Amneal has undertaken substantial efforts in developing and seeking approval for
`20.
`Amneal’s Proposed ANDA Products set forth in Amneal’s ANDA.
`
`ANSWER. Hospira lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`this paragraph.
`
`In View of the foregoing, an actual justiciable controversy exists by virtue of
`21.
`Amneal’s notification to Hospira of its ANDA filing, and Hospira’s subsequently filing the
`present suit.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that during the pendency of Hospira’s claims for infringement of
`
`the patents-in-suit against Amneal, there is an actual controversy between Hospira and Amneal
`
`regarding the infringement and validity of the patents-in—suit. Hospira denies the remaining
`
`allegations of this paragraph.
`
`COUNT I FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘158 PATENT
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff, Amneal hereby incorporates the allegations of the
`22.
`foregoing paragraphs 1-21 .
`
`ANSWER. Hospira incorporates herein its responses set forth above in paragraphs 1-
`
`21.
`
`A justiciable case or controversy exists between Counterclaim Plaintiff Amneal
`23.
`and Hospira, concerning the non-infringement of the ‘158 patent, which requires a declaration of
`rights by this Court.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that during the pendency of Hospira’s claims for infringement of
`
`the ‘158 patent against Amneal, there is an actual controversy between Hospira and Amneal
`
`regarding the infringement of the ‘158 patent. Hospira denies the remaining allegations of this
`
`paragraph.
`
`Amneal’s Proposed ANDA Products do not infringe any claim of the ‘158 patent,
`24.
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Amneal’s Proposed ANDA Products do not
`infringe, and would not infringe any valid claim of the ‘ 158 patent if made, used, sold, offered
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 139
`Case 1:15-cv-OO697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 7 of 15 PagelD #: 139
`
`for sale, or marketed in the United States, or imported into the United States. Amneal’s actions
`have not and would not induce anyone else to commit an act of infringement, nor would
`Amneal’s activities or Proposed ANDA Products constitute contributory infringement, of any
`claim of the ‘158 patent.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff, Amneal has no adequate remedy at law and is entitled to a
`25.
`declaratory judgment that the commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, marketing, or
`importation of Amneal’s Proposed ANDA Products do not, will not, and would not infringe any
`valid claim of the ‘ 158 patent.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT [1 FOR DECLARATO RY JUDGMENT OF
`
`PATENT IN VALIDITY OF THE ‘158 PATENT
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff Amneal repeats and incorporates the allegations of the
`26.
`foregoing paragraphs 1-25.
`
`ANSWER. Hospira incorporates herein its responses set forth above in paragraphs 1-
`
`25.
`
`A justiciable case or controversy exists between Counterclaim Plaintiff Amneal
`27.
`and Hospira, concerning the invalidity of the ‘ 158 patent, which requires a declaration of rights
`by this Court.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that during the pendency of Hospira’s claims for infringement of
`
`the ‘ 158 patent against Amneal, there is an actual controversy between Hospira and Amneal
`
`regarding the validity of the ‘ 158 patent. Hospira denies the remaining allegations of this
`
`paragraph.
`
`The ‘ 158 patent is invalid for failing to comply with one or more of the conditions
`28.
`and requirements for patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including, but not
`limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 140
`Case 1:15-cv-OO697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 8 of 15 PagelD #: 140
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff Amneal has no adequate remedy at law and is entitled to a
`29.
`declaratory judgment that the ‘ 158 patent is invalid and/or void.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.,
`30.
`Amneal requests a declaration from the Court that all the claims of the ‘ 158 patent are invalid.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that Amneal has requested a declaration from the Court that all
`
`the claims of the ‘158 patent are invalid, pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
`
`U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. Hospira denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.
`
`COUNT III FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘470 PATENT
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff, Amneal hereby incorporates the allegations of the
`31.
`foregoing paragraphs 1-30.
`
`ANSWER. Hospira incorporates herein its responses set forth above in paragraphs 1—
`
`30.
`
`A justiciable case or controversy exists between Counterclaim Plaintiff Amneal
`32.
`and Hospira, concerning the non-infringement of the ‘470 patent, which requires a declaration of
`rights by this Court.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that during the pendency of Hospira’s claims for infringement of
`
`the ‘470 patent against Amneal, there is an actual controversy between Hospira and Amneal
`
`regarding the infringement of the ‘470 patent. Hospira denies the remaining allegations of this
`
`paragraph.
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 141
`Case 1:15-cv-OO697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 9 of 15 PagelD #: 141
`
`Amneal’s Proposed ANDA Products do not infringe any claim of the ‘470 patent,
`33.
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Amneal’s Proposed ANDA Products do not
`infringe, and would not infringe any valid claim of the ‘470 patent if made, used, sold, offered
`for sale, or marketed in the United States, or imported into the United States. Amneal’s actions
`have not and would not induce anyone else to commit an act of infringement, nor would
`Amneal’s activities or Proposed ANDA Products constitute contributory infringement, of any
`claim of the ‘470 patent.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff, Amneal has no adequate remedy at law and is entitled to a
`34.
`declaratory judgment that the commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, marketing, or
`importation of Amneal’s Proposed ANDA Products do not, will not, and would not infringe any
`valid claim of the ‘470 patent.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT IV FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`
`PATENT INVALIDITY OF THE ‘470 PATENT
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff Amneal repeats and incorporates the allegations of the
`35.
`foregoing paragraphs 1-34.
`
`ANSWER. Hospira incorporates herein its responses set forth above in paragraphs 1-
`
`34.
`
`A justiciable case or controversy exists between Counterclaim Plaintiff Amneal
`36.
`and Hospira, concerning the invalidity of the ‘470 patent, which requires a declaration of rights
`by this Court.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that during the pendency of Hospira’s claims for infringement of
`
`the ‘470 patent against Amneal, there is an actual controversy between Hospira and Amneal
`
`regarding the validity of the ‘470 patent. Hospira denies the remaining allegations of this
`
`paragraph.
`
`The ‘470 patent is invalid for failing to comply with one or more of the conditions
`37.
`and requirements for patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including, but not
`limited to, 35 U.S.C.§§101,102,103, and 112.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 142
`Case 1:15-cv-OO697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 10 of 15 PagelD #: 142
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff Amneal has no adequate remedy at law and is entitled to a
`38.
`declaratory judgment that the ‘470 patent is invalid and/or void.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.,
`39.
`Amneal requests a declaration from the Court that all the claims of the ‘470 patent are invalid.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that Amneal has requested a declaration from the Court that all
`
`the claims of the ‘470 patent are invalid, pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
`
`U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. Hospira denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.
`
`This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and Amneal seeks recovery of
`40.
`its attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT V FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘527 PATENT
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff, Amneal hereby incorporates the allegations of the
`41.
`foregoing paragraphs 1-40.
`
`ANSWER. Hospira incorporates herein its responses set forth above in paragraphs 1-
`
`40.
`
`A justiciable case or controversy exists between Counterclaim Plaintiff Amneal
`42.
`and Hospira, concerning the non-infringement of the ‘527 patent, which requires a declaration of
`rights by this Court.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that during the pendency of Hospira’s claims for infringement of
`
`the ‘527 patent against Amneal, there is an actual controversy between Hospira and Amneal
`
`regarding the infringement of the ‘527 patent. Hospira denies the remaining allegations of this
`
`paragraph.
`
`Amneal’s Proposed ANDA Products do not infringe any claim of the ‘527 patent,
`43.
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Amneal’s Proposed ANDA Products do not
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 143
`Case 1:15-cv-OO697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 11 of 15 PagelD #: 143
`
`infringe, and would not infringe any valid claim of the ‘527 patent if made, used, sold, offered
`for sale, or marketed in the United States, or imported into the United States. Amneal’s actions
`have not and would not induce anyone else to commit an act of infringement, nor would
`Amneal’s activities or Proposed ANDA Products constitute contributory infringement, of any
`claim of the ‘527 patent.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff, Amneal has no adequate remedy at law and is entitled to a
`44.
`declaratory judgment that the commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, marketing, or
`importation of Amneal’s Proposed ANDA Products do not, will not, and would not infringe any
`valid claim of the ‘527 patent.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT VI FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`
`PATENT INVALIDITY OF THE ‘527 PATENT
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff Amneal repeats and incorporates the allegations of the
`45.
`foregoing paragraphs 1-44.
`
`ANSWER. Hospira incorporates herein its responses set forth above in paragraphs 1-
`
`44.
`
`A justiciable case or controversy exists between Counterclaim Plaintiff Amneal
`46.
`and Hospira, concerning the invalidity of the ‘527 patent, which requires a declaration of rights
`by this Court.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that during the pendency of Hospira’s claims for infringement of
`
`the patents-in-suit against Amneal, there is an actual controversy between Hospira and Amneal
`
`regarding the validity of the ‘527 patent. Hospira denies the remaining allegations of this
`
`paragraph.
`
`The ‘527 patent is invalid for failing to comply with one or more of the conditions
`47.
`and requirements for patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including, but not
`limited to, 35 U.S.C.§§101, 102,103, and 112.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 144
`Case 1:15-cv-OO697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 12 of 15 PagelD #: 144
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff Amneal has no adequate remedy at law and is entitled to a
`48.
`declaratory judgment that the ‘527 patent is invalid and/or void.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.,
`49.
`Amneal requests a declaration from the Court that all the claims of the ‘527 patent are invalid.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Admitted that Amneal has requested a declaration from the Court that all
`
`the claims of the ‘527 patent are invalid, pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
`
`U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. Hospira denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.
`
`COUNT VII FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘106 PATENT
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff, Amneal hereby incorporates the allegations of the
`50.
`foregoing paragraphs 1-49.
`
`ANSWER. Hospira incorporates herein its responses set forth above in paragraphs 1-
`
`49.
`
`A justiciable case or controversy exists between Counterclaim PlaintiffAmneal
`51.
`and Hospira, concerning the non-infringement of the ‘ 106 patent, which requires a declaration of
`rights by this Court.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that during the pendency of Hospira’s claims for infringement of
`
`the ‘ 106 patent against Amneal, there is an actual controversy between Hospira and Amneal
`
`regarding the infringement of the ‘ 106 patent. Hospira denies the remaining allegations of this
`
`paragraph.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 145
`Case 1:15-cv-OO697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 13 of 15 PagelD #: 145
`
`Amneal’s Proposed ANDA Products do not infringe any claim of the ‘106 patent,
`52.
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Amneal’s Proposed ANDA Products do not
`infringe, and would not infringe any valid claim of the ‘ 106 patent if made, used, sold, offered
`for sale, or marketed in the United States, or imported into the United States. Amneal’s actions
`have not and would not induce anyone else to commit an act of infringement, nor would
`Amneal’s activities or Proposed ANDA Products constitute contributory infringement, of any
`claim of the ‘106 patent.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff, Amneal has no adequate remedy at law and is entitled to a
`53.
`declaratory judgment that the commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, marketing, or
`importation of Amneal’s Proposed ANDA Products do not, will not, and would not infringe any
`valid claim of the ‘106 patent.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT VIII FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`
`PATENT [NVALIDITY OF THE ‘106 PATENT
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff Amneal repeats and incorporates the allegations of the
`54.
`foregoing paragraphs 1-53.
`
`ANSWER. Hospira incorporates herein its responses set forth above in paragraphs 1-
`
`53.
`
`A justiciable case or controversy exists between Counterclaim Plaintiff Amneal
`55.
`and Hospira, concerning the invalidity of the ‘106 patent, which requires a declaration of rights
`by this Court.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that during the pendency of Hospira’s claims for infringement of
`
`the ‘ 106 patent against Amneal, there is an actual controversy between Hospira and Amneal
`
`regarding the validity of the ‘106 patent. Hospira denies the remaining allegations of this
`
`paragraph.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 146
`Case 1:15-cv-OO697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 14 of 15 PagelD #: 146
`
`The ‘106 patent is invalid for failing to comply with one or more of the conditions
`56.
`and requirements for patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including, but not
`limited to, 35 U.S.C.§§101,102,103, and 112.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff Amneal has no adequate remedy at law and is entitled to a
`57.
`declaratory judgment that the ‘ 106 patent is invalid and/or void.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.,
`5 8.
`Amneal requests a declaration from the Court that all the claims of the ‘106 patent are invalid.
`
`ANSWER. Admitted that Amneal has requested a declaration from the Court that all
`
`the claims of the ‘106 patent are invalid, pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
`
`U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. Hospira denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.
`
`This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and Amneal seeks recovery of
`59.
`its attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`ANSWER.
`
`Denied.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 147
`Case 1:15-cv-OO697-RGA Document 15 Filed 09/25/15 Page 15 of 15 PagelD #: 147
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Hospira denies all remaining allegations not specifically admitted herein. Hospira denies
`
`that Amneal is entitled to any judgment or relief against Hospira and, therefore, specifically
`
`denies paragraphs A through G of Amneal’s Prayer for Relief.
`
`Dated: September 25, 2015
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`HOSPIRA, INC.
`
`By: /s/ Arthur G. Connolly, III
`
`CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP
`
`Arthur G. Connolly III (# 2667)
`Ryan P. Newell (# 4744)
`The Brandywine Building
`1000 West Street, Suite 1400
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`Telephone: (302) 757-7300
`
`Bradford P. Lyerla
`Sara T. Horton
`
`Yusuf Esat
`
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`
`353 N. Clark Street
`
`Chicago, IL 60654-3456
`Telephone: 312 222-9350
`Facsimile: 312 527—0484
`
`blyerla@j enner.com
`shorton@j enner.com
`yesat@jenner.com
`
`Attorneys for PlaintiffHospira, Inc.
`
`15
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket