throbber
E
`wl
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 23 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 11
`RDS
`EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP
`Iì]HUNTINGTONAVENUE
`BOSION, MA 02I99
`N
`+l 617 239 0l 00 moin +l ó17 227 4420 lox
`edwordswildmon com
`
`David G. Conlin
`P artner
`+l 6t7 517 5515
`lax +1 888 325 9129
`dconl in@edwardswi ldman com
`
`October 3,2014
`
`VIA ECF
`
`Hon. Paul A. Crotty
`United States District Judge
`United States Courthouse
`500 Pearl Street, Room 735
`New York, NY 10007
`
`Re: Kowa Company, Ltd., et al. v Aurobindo Pharma Limited , et al., and related cases,l4-cv-
`2497-PAC, I4-cv-2647-PAC, l4-cv-2758,74-cv-2759,14-cv-27-60-PAC, and 14-cv-5575-PAC
`
`Dear Judge Crotty,
`
`'We represent plaintifß Kowa Company, Ltd., Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., and
`
`Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd. ("Plaintiffs") in this matter. V/e write on behalf of all parties,
`
`and respectfully submit this joint letter pursuant to Your Honor's Individual Practice Rule 6G,
`
`addressing the following:
`
`1. The names, addresses (including firm names), e-mail addresses, telephone, and fax
`numbers of trial counsel.
`
`Trial Counsel for Plaintifß Kowa Company, Ltd., Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., and
`Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd.
`
`Anthony J. Vi o I a (av iola@edwardswildman. com)
`EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP
`750 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Phone: (212)308-4411
`Fax: (212) 308-4844
`
`Bü:jOÌ.¡ . ai"liL..,4ilO, !lÂRil.()iID - |ì,+r{G KON$ - l::T/â\tìUt r lOflj.](-jN , tc)5 Â|.ìúi'iEj . Â41Å¡¿l '¡rrlji{tf3i/"lWi'..1
`¡r:Tv Yi);lK, OiìÂl!ùli:üU\iÍy. ËÍlüviiitN{Ê , SlàMi()îû r lr--1KYû' \{/ASlllNülOl'.1 þ('Wt:5t I:A].tábiÌ',r:ll
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 23 Filed 10/03/14 Page 2 of 11
`EDWARDS
`WILDMAN
`
`Hon. Paul A. Crotty
`October 3,2014
`Page2
`
`David G. Conlin (dconlin@edwardswildman.com)
`Kathleen B. Can (kcan@edwardswildman.com)
`Adam P. S amansky (asamansky @edw ardswildman. com)
`EDV/ARDS V/ILDMAN PALMER LLP
`111 Huntington Avenue
`Boston, I|;4'1'02199
`Phone: (617)239-0100
`Fax: (617) 227-4420
`
`Trial Counsel for Defendants Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLCI
`
`Andrew J. Miller (amiller@buddlarner.com)
`Constance S. Huttner (chuttner@buddlarner.com)
`BUDD LARNER, P.C.
`150 John F. Kennedy Parkway
`Short Hills, NJ 07078 -0999
`Phone: (973)379-4800
`Fax: (973) 379-7734
`
`Trial Counsel for Defendants Mylan Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`Arnold B. Calmann (acalmann@saiber.com)
`Jakob Benj amin Halpern (bh@saiber.com)
`Saiber LLC
`18 Columbia Turnpike
`Suite 200
`Florham Park, NJ 01932
`Phone: (973) 622-8394
`Fax: (973) 622-3349
`
`'William A. Rakoczy (wrakoczy@rmmslegal.com)
`D e anne M. Mazzo chi (dmazzochi @rmm s I e gal . c o m)
`Amy D. Brody (abrody @rmmslegal. com)
`RAKOCZY MOLINO MAZZOCHI SIV/IK LLP
`6 West Hubbard Street, Suite 500
`
`t W. belieu e that Amneal is in agreement with this submission but have not yet received final
`confirmation.
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 23 Filed 10/03/14 Page 3 of 11
`EDWARDS
`WILDAAAN
`
`Hon. Paul A. Crotty
`October 3,2014
`Page 3
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Phone: (312)222-6301
`Fax: (312) 222-6321
`
`Trial Counsel for Defendants Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. and Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc
`
`H. Keeto Sabharwal (keetos@skgf.com)
`Paul A. Ainsworth (painsworth@skgf.com)
`Chandrika Vira (cvira@skgf. com)
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEiN & FOX, PLLC
`1100 New York Avenue
`V/ashington, DC 20005
`Phone: (202)772-8511
`Fax: (202) 371-2600
`
`Trial Counsel for Defendants Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Limited
`
`Steven J. Moore (smoore@kelleydrye.com)
`Vincent P. Rao II (vrao@kelleydrye.com)
`Elizabeth W. S wedo ck (e swedo ck@kelleydrye. com)
`Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
`101 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10178
`Phone: (212) 808-7800
`Fax: (212) 808-7897
`
`Trial Counsel for Defendant Orient Pharma Co., Ltd.
`
`Don J. Mizerk (don.mizerk@huschblackwell.com)
`Katherine E. Rohlf (katherine.rohlf@huschblackwell.com)
`Husch Blackwell LLP
`120 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Phone: (312) 655-1500
`Fax: (312) 655-1501
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 23 Filed 10/03/14 Page 4 of 11
`EDWARDS
`WILDMAN
`
`Hon. Paul A. Crotty
`October 3,2014
`Page 4
`
`Trial Counsel for Defendants Sawai USA, Inc., and Sawai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
`
`Craig S. Kesch (ckesch@fzwz.com)
`Flemming Ztilack'Williamson Zauder er LLP
`One Liberty Plaza
`New York, NY 10006-1404
`Phone: (212) 412-9500
`
`Chidambaram S. lyer (ciy er @sughrue. com)
`Michael D zw onczyk (mdzwon czyk@sughrue. c om)
`Azy S. Kokabi (akokabi@sughrue.com)
`Sughrue Mion, PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave., N. V/.
`V/ashington, DC 20037
`Phone: 202-775-7542
`Fax:202-293-7860
`
`2. A brief description of the case, including the factual and legal bases for the claim(s) and
`defense(s).
`
`Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. ("KPA") sells pharmaceutical products containing
`
`the active ingredient pitavastatin calcium under the trade name Livalo@ in the United States
`
`pursuant to the United States Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") approval of New Drug
`
`Application No. 22-363 ("pitavastatin NDA"). Kowa Company, Ltd., ("KCL") represents it is
`
`the holder of the pitavastatin NDA. Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd. ("NCI") represents it has
`
`been and still is the owner through assignment of United States Patent No. 5,856,336 ("the '336
`
`patent"). KCL and KPA represent that they are licensed under the '336 patent. KCL and NCI
`
`represent that they have been and still are the owners through assignment of United States Patent
`
`No. 6,465,477 ("the'477 patent"). KPA represents it is licensed under the'477 patent. NCI
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 23 Filed 10/03/14 Page 5 of 11
`EDWARDS
`WILDAAAN
`
`Hon. Paul A. Crotty
`October 3,2014
`Page 5
`
`represents it has been and still is the owner through assignment of United States Patent No.
`
`8,557,993 ("the '993 patent"). KCL and KPA represent they are licensed under the '993 patent.
`
`The '336 patent, '477 patent, and'993 patent (collectively the "patents-in-suit") are listed in the
`
`Orange Book for pitavastatin calcium.
`
`These are Hatch-Waxman cases (35 U.S.C. $ 271(e)) involving the submission of various
`
`separately owned and developed Abbreviated New Drug Applications ("ANDA") with the FDA
`
`under 21 U.S.C. $ 355(l). Various defendants in these civil actions filed these ANDAs, which
`
`seek approval to market drug products comprising pitavastatin calcium. Various of the
`
`defendants in these civil actions also served Plaintiffs with a "Parugraph IV" notice letter
`
`pursuant to 21 U.S.C. $ 355(jX2XB), contending that one or more of the patents-in-suit are
`
`invalid andlor will not be infringed by the individual defendants' sale of their pitavastatin drug
`
`products. In response, Plaintiffs have filed these patent infringement suits seeking relief against
`
`each defendant for, inter alia, infringement under the Hatch-V/axman Act, 35 U.S.C. $ 271(e)(2),
`
`inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. $ 271(b), andlor contributory infringement under 35
`
`u.S.C. $ 271(c).
`
`3. A brief statement by plaintiff as to the basis of subject-matter jurisdiction and a brief
`statement by each other party as to the presence or absence of subject-matter jurisdiction.
`Such statements shall include citations to all statutes relied on and relevant facts as to
`citizenship and jurisdictional amount.
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 23 Filed 10/03/14 Page 6 of 11
`EDWARDS
`WILDMAN
`
`Hon. Paul A. Crotty
`October 3,2014
`Page 6
`
`Plaintiffs:
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, Title 35, United States Code and arising under 35 U.S.C. $$ 271(e)(2),271(b), andlor
`
`271(c), and28l-283. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. $$ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`Defendants:
`
`Defendant Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC does not contest this Court's subject matter
`
`jurisdiction under Title 35, United States Code.
`
`Defendants Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. and Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. (collectively
`
`"Aurobindo") do not contest this Court's subject matter jurisdiction under Title 35, United States
`
`Code with respect to Civil Action No: 1 :I4-cv-02497.
`
`The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any and all claims asserted against
`
`Mylan Inc., as Mylan Inc. is not a proper defendant under 35 U.S.C. $$ 271(e)(2)(A),271(b),
`
`271(c), or 281-283 and has engaged in no activity otherwise sufficient to create subject matter
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`Defendant Orient Pharma Co., Ltd. ("Orient") does not contest this Court's subject matter
`
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. $ 1338(a).
`
`Defendants Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Limited
`
`(collectively, "Zydus") admit that this action purports to be an action for alleged patent
`
`infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code and
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 23 Filed 10/03/14 Page 7 of 11
`EDWARDS
`WILDMAN
`
`Hon. Paul A. Crotty
`October 3,2014
`Page 7
`
`arising under 35 U.S.C. $$ 271(e)(2), 2l|(b), andlor 271(c), and 281-283. Subject matter
`
`jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. $$ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`4. A brief summary by each party of the claim(s) and defense(s) that party has asserted
`which remain to be tried, without recital of evidentiary matter but including citations to all
`statutes relied on. Such summaries shall identiff all claims and defenses previously asserted
`which are not to be tried.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`Plaintiffs have filed patent infringement suits seeking relief against each defendant for,
`
`inter alia, infringement under the Hatch-Waxman Act, 35 U.S.C. $ 27I(e)(2), inducing
`
`infringement under 35 U.S.C. $ 271(b), and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. $ 27I(c),
`
`and have asserted the '336 patent, the'477 patent andlor the'993 patent against each defendant.
`
`All of the individual suits and each of the recited causes of action remain to be tried.
`
`Amneal: Same as Mylan, below, with possible exception of fourth sentence if it refers to
`
`the'477 patent, which is not asserted against Amneal.
`
`Aurobindo Aurobindo denies Plaintiffs can meet their burden to prove infringement of
`
`any valid patent claim under 35 U.S.C. S 271(e)(2), 35 U.S.C. $ 271(b), and contributory
`
`infringement under 35 U.S.C. $ 271(c) as to all patents. Aurobindo intends to raise invalidity
`
`defenses under, at least e.g.,35 U.S.C. S 101; $ 102; $ 103; $ 112 (indefiniteness, non-
`
`enablement, written description); and for obviousness-type double-patenting. Aurobindo notes
`
`that there are further invalidity andlor unenforceability defenses that may arise, but such defenses
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 23 Filed 10/03/14 Page 8 of 11
`EDWARDS
`WILDAAAN
`
`Hon. Paul A. Crotty
`October 3,2014
`Page 8
`
`require discovery from Plaintiffs. All of the individual suits and each of the recited causes of
`
`action remain to be tried.
`
`Mylan: Mylan denies Plaintiffs can meet their burden to prove infringement of any valid
`
`patent claim under 35 U.S.C. $ 271(e)(2), 35 U.S.C. $ 271(b), and contributory infringement
`
`under 35 U.S.C. $ 271(c) as to all patents. Mylan intends to raise invalidity defenses under, at
`
`least e.9.,35 U.S.C. $ 101; $ 102; $ 103; $ 112 (indefiniteness, non-enablement, written
`
`description); and for obviousness-type double-patenting. Mylan notes that there are further
`
`invalidity andlor unenforceability defenses that may arise, but such defenses require discovery
`
`from Plaintifß. Mylan further intends to challenge Plaintiffs' demand for remedy on the patents
`
`(e.g., Plaintiffs are asserting one patent that is set to expire before FDA-related regulatory
`
`exclusivities expire). All of the individual suits and each of the recited causes of action remain
`
`to be tried. Mylan further incorporates by reference Orient's statement below.
`
`Orient: Orient denies Plaintifß' allegations of infringement of fhe'336,'471 and'993
`
`patents, and has asserted in its responsive pleading that the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale,
`
`or importation of the pitavastatin tablets that are the subject of Orient's ANDA will not infringe,
`
`directly or indirectly, any valid andlor enforceable claim of the'336,'477 andlor '993 patents,
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. In addition, Orient has asserted that the
`
`claims of the '336, '477 and '993 patents are invalid for failure to comply with the statutory
`
`provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, one or more of
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 23 Filed 10/03/14 Page 9 of 11
`EDWARDS
`WILDMAN
`
`Hon. Paul A. Crotty
`October 3,2074
`Page 9
`
`sections I0I, I02, 103, 1ll, Il2, 116, 135,256,and287,or other judicially-createdbasesfor
`
`invalidation and enforceability. Orient has also asserted a number of other afhrmative defenses,
`
`including: (1) prosecution history estoppel, (2) lack of standing by Plaintiff Kowa Company,
`
`Ltd., (3) lack of personal jurisdiction, (4) improper venue, (5) res judicata andlor collateral
`
`estoppel, and (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under at least 35
`
`U.S,C. $ 271(b) and $ 271 (c). Orient notes that further defenses may arise during the course of
`
`discovery.
`
`Sawai: Same as Mylan.
`
`Z\tdus: Same as Mylan.
`
`5. Any contemplated motions.
`
`Plaintiffs - None at present.
`
`Amneal: Same as Mylan, below, with exception of first sentence referring to'477 patent.
`
`Aurobindo: Aurobindo contemplates that there may be issues ripe for summary judgment
`
`on at least one or more of the asserted patents, but believes that at the present time, it is
`
`appropriate to at least initially proceed with discovery
`
`M)¡lan: Mylan may seek judgment on the pleadings andlor summary judgment on at least
`
`the'477 patent. Mylan contemplates that there may be issues ripe for summary judgment on at
`
`least one or more of the remaining asserted patents, but believes that at the present time, it is
`
`appropriate to at least initially proceed with discovery. Mylan further notes that there are alarge
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 23 Filed 10/03/14 Page 10 of 11
`DWARDS
`DMAN
`
`E
`wlL
`
`Hon. Paul A. Crotty
`October 3,2074
`Page 10
`
`number of inventors listed on the asserted patents who purport to reside in a foreign country and
`
`who may wish to testiff in a foreign language. Plaintiffs should agree to present named
`
`inventors or witnesses testifying under Rule 30(b)(6) for deposition in the United States for an
`
`appropriate period of time (particularly to account for translation time); this may be a source of
`
`motions to compel if the parties cannot reach agreement.
`
`Orient: Same as Mylan. In addition, as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`12, Orient has included in its responsive pleading objections and affirmative defenses to personal
`
`jurisdiction and venue. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(i), Orient defers to the
`
`Court as to its preference for the timing and manner of addressing such objections during the
`
`course ofthe case.
`
`Sawai: Same as Mylan. In addition, Sawai Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., is seeking
`
`permission from the court to file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure for lack of personal jurisdiction.
`
`Zydus: Same as Mylan.
`
`6. A statement by each party as to whether the case is to be tried with or without a jury,
`and the number of trial days needed.
`
`The case is to be tried without a jury. The parties' present best estimate for the number
`
`of trial days needed is 14 to 2I days.
`
`7. A statement as to whether or not all parties have consented to trial of the case by a
`magistrate judge (without identifying which parties have or have not so consented).
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02758-PAC Document 23 Filed 10/03/14 Page 11 of 11
`
`Hon. Paul A. Crotty
`October 3,2014
`Page 1 1
`
`All parties have not consented to trial of the case by a magistrate judge.
`
`r
`
`David G. Conlin
`cc: Counsel of Record
`
`

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