Case 1:17-cv-00401-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/10/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No.____
`
`
`BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY
`AND PFIZER INC.,
`
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD.
`AND DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”) and Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”) (BMS and
`
`Pfizer, collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by their attorneys, hereby allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, Title 35, United States Code, against Defendants Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. (“Dr.
`
`Reddy’s Ltd.”) and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (“Dr. Reddy’s Inc.,” and together with Dr.
`
`Reddy’s Ltd., “DRL”). This action relates to Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) No.
`
`210082 filed by DRL with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).
`
`2.
`
`In ANDA No. 210082, DRL seeks approval to market 2.5 mg and 5 mg tablets of
`
`apixaban, generic versions of Plaintiffs’ Eliquis® drug product (the “DRL ANDA product”), prior
`
`to expiration of U.S. Patent No. 9,326,945 (the “’945 patent” or “patent-in-suit”).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00401-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/10/17 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`BMS is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, having a
`
`place of business at Route 206 and Province Line Road, Princeton, New Jersey 08540.
`
`4.
`
`Pfizer is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, having
`
`its principal place of business at 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs are engaged in the business of creating, developing, and bringing to
`
`market revolutionary pharmaceutical products to help patients prevail against serious diseases,
`
`including treatments for thromboembolic disorders. Plaintiffs sell Eliquis® in this judicial district
`
`and throughout the United States.
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Dr. Reddy’s Ltd. is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of India, having its principal place of business at Door No. 8-2-337, Road
`
`No. 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500034, Andhra Pradesh, India.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, Dr. Reddy’s Inc. is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, having its principal place of business at 107
`
`College Road East, Princeton, New Jersey 08540.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 100, et
`
`seq., and this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`
`1338(a), 2201, and 2202.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and/or 1400(b), and this
`
`Court has personal jurisdiction over DRL. DRL, through its counsel, by e-mail dated March 27,
`
`2017, agreed that it does not contest jurisdiction or venue in this Court in this matter.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00401-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/10/17 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3
`
`PATENT-IN-SUIT
`
`10.
`
`On May 3, 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued the
`
`’945 patent, titled “Apixaban Formulations.” A true and correct copy of the ’945 patent is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit A. The claims of the ’945 patent are valid, enforceable, and not
`
`expired. Plaintiffs are the joint owners of the ’945 patent and have the right to enforce it.
`
`11.
`
`BMS is the holder of New Drug Application (“NDA”) No. 202155, by which the
`
`FDA granted approval for the marketing and sale of 2.5 mg and 5 mg strength apixaban tablets.
`
`Plaintiffs market apixaban tablets in the United States, under the trade name “Eliquis®.” The
`
`FDA’s official publication of approved drugs (the “Orange Book”) includes Eliquis® together with
`
`the patent-in-suit. Eliquis® is a factor Xa inhibitor indicated: (1) to reduce the risk of stroke and
`
`systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation; (2) for the prophylaxis of deep
`
`vein thrombosis (“DVT”), which may lead to pulmonary embolism (“PE”), in patients who have
`
`undergone hip or knee replacement surgery; and (3) for the treatment of DVT and PE, and for the
`
`reduction in the risk of recurrent DVT and PE following initial therapy. A copy of the complete
`
`prescribing information for Eliquis® approved in NDA No. 202155 is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`INFRINGEMENT BY DRL
`
`12.
`
`By letter sent by UPS Next Day Air on March 9, 2017, DRL notified Plaintiffs that
`
`DRL had submitted ANDA No. 210082 to the FDA under Section 505(j) of the Federal Food,
`
`Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 355(j)) (“the Eliquis Notice Letter”). Plaintiffs received the
`
`Eliquis Notice Letter no earlier than March 10, 2017.
`
`13.
`
`The Eliquis Notice Letter states that DRL seeks approval from the FDA to engage
`
`in the commercial manufacture, use, and sale of the DRL ANDA product before the expiration of
`
`the patent-in-suit. Upon information and belief, DRL intends to – directly or indirectly – engage
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00401-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/10/17 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 4
`
`in the commercial manufacture, use, and sale of the DRL ANDA product promptly upon receiving
`
`FDA approval to do so.
`
`14.
`
`By filing ANDA No. 210082, DRL has necessarily represented to the FDA that the
`
`DRL ANDA product has the same active ingredient as Eliquis®, has the same dosage form and
`
`strength as Eliquis®, and is bioequivalent to Eliquis®.
`
`15.
`
`Upon information and belief, DRL is seeking approval to market the DRL ANDA
`
`product for the same approved indications as Eliquis®.
`
`16.
`
`In the Eliquis Notice Letter, DRL states that its ANDA contains a certification
`
`pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) asserting that the patent-in-suit is invalid,
`
`unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use, and sale of the
`
`DRL ANDA product.
`
`17.
`
`In the Eliquis Notice Letter, DRL offered confidential access to portions of its
`
`ANDA No. 210082 on terms and conditions set forth in the Eliquis Notice Letter (“the DRL
`
`Offer”). DRL requested that Plaintiffs accept the DRL Offer before receiving access to DRL’s
`
`ANDA No. 210082. The DRL Offer contained unreasonable restrictions well beyond those that
`
`would apply under a protective order on who could view the ANDA. For example, the DRL Offer
`
`contained a broad patent prosecution bar, which, among other things, does not have a carve-out for
`
`inter-partes reviews or other adversarial proceedings, and a broad restriction barring access by
`
`outside counsel who engage in any FDA counseling, litigation, or other work before or involving
`
`the FDA. The DRL Offer unreasonably restricted the ability of counsel to seek the opinions of
`
`outside experts without written permission from DRL’s designated counsel, and DRL had broad
`
`authority to reject any request by Plaintiffs to seek outside expert access to the DRL ANDA. The
`
`restrictions DRL has placed on access to ANDA No. 210082 contravene 21 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00401-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/10/17 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 5
`
`§ 355(j)(5)(C)(i)(III), which states that an offer of confidential access “shall contain such
`
`restrictions as to persons entitled to access, and on the use and disposition of any information
`
`accessed, as would apply had a protective order been entered for the purpose of protecting trade
`
`secrets and other confidential business information” (emphasis added).
`
`18.
`
`This Complaint is being filed before the expiration of forty-five days from the date
`
`Plaintiffs received the Eliquis Notice Letter.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’945 PATENT)
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`Each of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 18 is incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
`
`DRL’s submission of ANDA No. 210082 to obtain approval to engage in the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer to sell, or sale of the DRL ANDA product prior to the
`
`expiration of the ’945 patent constituted a technical act of infringement of at least one of the claims
`
`of the ’945 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, including but not limited to
`
`claims 1, 9-12, 20-23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, and 37, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A).
`
`21.
`
`DRL’s commercial manufacture, use, offer to sell, sale, or importation of the DRL
`
`ANDA product prior to the expiration of the ’945 patent, and its inducement of and/or contribution
`
`to such conduct, would further infringe at least one of the claims of the ’945 patent, either literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents, including but not limited to claims 1, 9-12, 20-23, 25, 27, 29,
`
`31, 33, 35, and 37, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b) and/or (c).
`
`22.
`
`Upon FDA approval of DRL ANDA No. 210082, DRL will infringe one or more
`
`claims of the ’945 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, including but not
`
`limited to claims 1, 9-12, 20-23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, and 37, by making, using, offering to sell,
`
`and selling the DRL ANDA product in the United States and/or importing said product into the
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00401-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/10/17 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6
`
`United States, or by actively inducing and contributing to infringement of the ’945 patent by
`
`others, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(c), unless enjoined by the Court.
`
`23.
`
`If DRL’s marketing and sale of the DRL ANDA product prior to expiration of the
`
`’945 patent and all other relevant exclusivities are not enjoined, Plaintiffs will suffer substantial
`
`and irreparable harm for which there is no remedy at law.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court grant the following relief:
`
`1.
`
`A judgment that the claims of the patent-in-suit are not invalid, are not
`
`unenforceable, and are infringed by DRL’s submission of ANDA No. 210082, either literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, and that DRL’s making, using, offering to sell, or selling in the
`
`United States, or importing into the United States the DRL ANDA product will infringe the claims
`
`of the patent-in-suit, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`2.
`
`An order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A) providing that the effective
`
`date of any approval of ANDA No. 210082 shall be a date which is not earlier than the latest
`
`expiration date of the patent-in-suit, including any extensions and/or additional periods of
`
`exclusivity to which Plaintiffs are or become entitled.
`
`3.
`
`An order permanently enjoining DRL, its affiliates, subsidiaries, and each
`
`of its officers, agents, servants and employees and those acting in privity or concert with them,
`
`from making, using, offering to sell, or selling in the United States, or importing into the United
`
`States the DRL ANDA product until after the latest expiration date of the patent-in-suit, including
`
`any extensions and/or additional periods of exclusivity to which Plaintiffs are or become entitled.
`
`4.
`
`Damages or other monetary relief, including costs, fees, pre- and
`
`post-judgment interest, to Plaintiffs if DRL engages in commercial manufacture, use, offers to sell,
`
`sale, or importation in or into the United States of the DRL ANDA product prior to the latest
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00401-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/10/17 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 7
`
`expiration date of the patent-in-suit, including any extensions and/or additional periods of
`
`exclusivity to which Plaintiffs are or become entitled.
`
`5.
`
`Such further and other relief as this Court deems proper and just, including
`
`any appropriate relief under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`
`Dated: April 10, 2017
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FARNAN, LLP
`
`Amy K. Wigmore
`Gregory H. Lantier
`Tracey C. Allen
`Heather M. Petruzzi
`Jeffrey T. Hantson
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`202-663-6000
`202-663-6363
`
`/s/ Michael J. Farnan
`Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. (Bar No. 100245)
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`919 N. Market Str., 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 777-0300
`Fax: (302) 777-0301
`farnan@farnanlaw.com
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Bristol-Myers Squibb
`Company and Pfizer Inc.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`