`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
`
`