Michael A. Amon (SBN 226221)
`amon@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`555 West Fifth Street, 31st Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90013
`Tel: (213) 533-4240/Fax: (877) 417-2378
`
`Jonathan E. Singer (SBN 187908)
`singer@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, California 92130
`Tel: (858) 678-5070/Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`John M. Farrell (SBN 99649)
`farrell@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
`Redwood City, California 94063
`Tel: (858) 678-5070/Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`ALLERGAN, INC. and ALLERGAN SALES, LLC
`(Additional counsel listed on signature page)
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL
`EXTORTION, MALICIOUS
`PROSECUTION, AND UNFAIR
`BUSINESS PRACTICES ARISING
`FROM U.S. PATENT LAWS
`
`
`
`ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN
`SALES, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`FERRUM FERRO CAPITAL, LLC;
`KEVIN BARNES,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL EXTORTION AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ARISING FROM U.S. PATENT LAWS
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2021
`Mangrove v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2015-01047
`
`Page 1 of 18
`
`

`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Allergan, Inc. and Allergan Sales, LLC (collectively, “Allergan”), by
`
`their attorneys, alleges the following claims against Defendants Ferrum Ferro Capital,
`
`LLC (“FFC”) and Kevin Barnes (“Barnes”) (collectively “Defendants”):
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action arising out of Defendants’ attempt to extort
`
`Allergan by misusing the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) process established by the
`
`America Invents Act (“AIA”), H.R. 1249, enacted to reform 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
`
`Defendants’ conduct raises substantial issues related to the misuse of the patent
`
`system and the processes established by the AIA, and constitutes attempted civil
`
`extortion and malicious prosecution under California law in addition to violating
`
`California’s Unfair Competition Law codified at California Bus. & Prof. Code §§
`
`17200 et seq.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Allergan, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 2525 Dupont Drive,
`
`Irvine, California 92612.
`
`3.
`
`Allergan Sales, LLC is a limited liability company organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business at
`
`2525 Dupont Drive, Irvine, California 92612.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, FFC is a Delaware limited liability company
`
`without any principal place of business. On information and belief, FFC maintains a
`
`mail drop box at 717 N. Union Street, #78, Wilmington, Delaware 19805.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Kevin Barnes in a citizen of the state of New
`
`York, who resides at 515 W. 59th Street, Apartment 19A, New York, New York
`
`10019.
`
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL EXTORTION AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ARISING FROM U.S. PATENT LAWS
`Case No.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 2 of 18
`
`

`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This Court has original jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted
`
`herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, or 1367. As described in detail below,
`
`this complaint necessarily raises issues related to Defendants’ misuse of the patent
`
`laws of the United States of America, and the processes established by the AIA,
`
`which amended the patent laws of the United States.
`
`7.
`
`FFC has filed an objectively baseless IPR petition for the express
`
`purpose of monetizing the petition, including by attempting to extort compensation
`
`from Allergan. The objective baselessness of FFC’s IPR petition necessarily raises
`
`federal issues that are actually disputed and substantial. Moreover, the issues raised
`
`by this complaint are not limited to the facts of or parties involved in this case, but
`
`rather apply to many other AIA petitioners attempting similar extortionate schemes.
`
`Indeed, the behavior complained of herein—the use of the IPR process in an effort to
`
`extract compensation from patent-holders—has been the subject of extensive debate
`
`in Congress and the national press, as evidenced by the attached recent op-ed in the
`
`Wall Street Journal. See Ex. A, attached. This Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over
`
`these important and far-reaching federal issues will not disrupt the balance struck by
`
`Congress between the federal and state courts.
`
`8.
`
`Given the importance and potential impact of this dispute on the federal
`
`system and the laws governing the AIA, this Court can and should exercise
`
`jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over FFC because FFC specifically
`
`reached out to Allergan, which is resident in this Judicial District, for the purposes of
`
`extorting Allergan under the guise of settlement of an IPR petition authorized under
`
`the AIA. FFC has hired counsel based in this Judicial District for the purpose of
`
`aiding in its efforts to extort Allergan under the guise of settlement from Allergan.
`
`The harm caused by FFC and suffered by Allergan has occurred in this district and
`
`was directed at this district by FFC. In addition, through its conduct, FFC has sought
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL EXTORTION AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ARISING FROM U.S. PATENT LAWS
`Case No.
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 18
`
`

`
`
`
`to allegedly do business in this Judicial District and to avail itself of the laws in this
`
`Judicial District.
`
`10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Kevin Barnes because Mr.
`
`Barnes, acting through FFC, specifically reached out to Allergan, which is resident in
`
`this Judicial District, for the purposes of extorting Allergan under the guise of
`
`settlement of an IPR petition authorized under the AIA. Mr. Barnes, through FFC,
`
`has hired counsel based in this Judicial District for the purpose of aiding in its efforts
`
`to extort Allergan under the guise of settlement from Allergan. The harm caused by
`
`Mr. Barnes and suffered by Allergan has occurred in this district and was directed at
`
`this district by Mr. Barnes. In addition, Mr. Barnes, through FFC, has sought to
`
`allegedly do business in this Judicial District and to avail himself of the laws of the
`
`state in this Judicial District.
`
`11. Allergan’s complaint originates from Defendants’ attempts to extort
`
`Allergan under the guise of settlement, and Defendants’ associated conduct and
`
`activities in this Judicial District. As such, this Court has specific personal
`
`jurisdiction over Defendants.
`
`12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and/or
`
`1391(c).
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING ALLERGAN’S INNOVATIVE
`TREATMENT FOR GLAUCOMA AND OCULAR HYPERTENSION
`
`13. Allergan incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1-12 of this Complaint as
`
`if repeated verbatim in this Paragraph.
`
`14. Allergan is one of the world’s leading and most innovative
`
`pharmaceutical companies. One of the specialties of Allergan is research and
`
`development of products for treating diseases of the eye.
`
`15. Glaucoma is an incurable disease of the eye that damages the optic nerve
`
`over time, resulting in vision loss, and often, blindness. It afflicts approximately 70
`
`million patients worldwide. While the cause of glaucoma is unknown, a symptom
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL EXTORTION AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ARISING FROM U.S. PATENT LAWS
`Case No.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`

`
`
`
`of the disease is a dramatic escalation of the pressure inside the eye, known as
`
`intraocular pressure. Elevated intraocular pressure is known as ocular hypertension.
`
`16. While incurable, the elevated intraocular pressure found in glaucoma
`
`and ocular hypertension patients can be treated with eye drops to control pressure,
`
`slowing the progression of the diseases. For many patients, one type of drop a day is
`
`not enough—these patients must administer multiple medications, many of which
`
`require multiple doses taken at different times of day.
`
`17.
`
` In part to solve this problem, Allergan developed COMBIGAN®, which
`
`is a combination of brimonidine and timolol for “topical ophthalmic use” in treating
`
`patients suffering from glaucoma and/or ocular hypertension. The development of
`
`COMBIGAN® required the investment of tens of millions of dollars by Allergan and
`
`thousands of hours in research and development.
`
`18. Allergan is the holder of an approved New Drug Application (“NDA”)
`
`No. 21-398 for brimonidine tartrate/timolol maleate ophthalmic solution 0.2%/0.5%,
`
`sold under the COMBIGAN® trademark.
`
`19. COMBIGAN® has proven to be a significant improvement for treating
`
`glaucoma and ocular hypertension due, in part, to its having comparable efficacy to
`
`brimonidine and timolol administered separately and to its superior safety profile.
`
`20. NDA No. 21-398 for COMBIGAN® is associated with at least six
`
`patents duly issued to Chin-Ming Chang, Gary J. Beck, Cynthia C. Pratt, and Amy L.
`
`Batoosingh , including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,030,149 (“the ’149 patent”), 7,320,976,
`
`7,642,258, 8,133,890, 8,354,409, and 8,748,425.
`
`21. Allergan, as assignee, owns the entire right, title, and interest in each of
`
`these six patents, including the ’149 patent.
`
`22. COMBIGAN® or approved methods of using COMBIGAN® are
`
`covered by at least one claim of each of the six patents listed above, including the
`
`’149 patent.
`
`23. Because of its success in the marketplace, numerous generic
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL EXTORTION AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ARISING FROM U.S. PATENT LAWS
`Case No.
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 18
`
`

`
`
`
`pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz, Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc.,
`
`Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Falcon Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Apotex, Inc., Apotex,
`
`Corporation, and Watson Laboratories, Inc. (collectively “the Competitors” or
`
`“Allergan’s Competitors”), have filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications
`
`(“ANDA”) with the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), seeking
`
`approval to market generic versions of COMBIGAN® before the expiration of
`
`Allergan’s patents covering COMBIGAN®, including the ’149 patent. These
`
`ANDAs were filed pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, the statute that governs
`
`generic drug approvals.
`
`24. As contemplated by the Hatch-Waxman Act, Allergan sued the
`
`Competitors for a judgment that the Competitors’ generic formulations disclosed in
`
`their various ANDA applications infringed Allergan’s duly issued patents, including
`
`the ’149 patent.
`
`25.
`
`In response, the Competitors sought declaratory judgment that
`
`Allergan’s patents, including the ’149 patent, were invalid.
`
`26.
`
`Included among the validity challenges raised by the Competitors were
`
`claims that the ’149 patent was invalid as obvious in light of certain prior art,
`
`including the DeSantis, Timmermans, Stewart, and Larsson references.
`
`27. The cases between Allergan and the Competitors were tried to the bench
`
`in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in August 2011,
`
`the Honorable T. John Ward presiding. In support of their validity challenges on the
`
`’149 patent, the Competitors introduced lengthy expert witness testimony at trial,
`
`including from a treating ophthalmologist and an ophthalmic formulator. Those
`
`experts addressed the DeSantis, Timmermans, Stewart, and Larsson references.
`
`28.
`
`In August 2011, the district court entered judgment in favor of Allergan
`
`on the Competitors’ validity challenges to the ’149 patent, rejecting the Competitors’
`
`arguments and testimony. The district court rejected defendants’ arguments over
`
`each of the DeSantis, Timmermans, Stewart, and Larsson references.
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL EXTORTION AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ARISING FROM U.S. PATENT LAWS
`Case No.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 6 of 18
`
`

`
`
`
`29. On May 1, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment rejecting the Competitors’ validity
`
`challenge to the ’149 patent. In September of that same year, the Court of Appeals
`
`denied a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and issued its mandate. The
`
`United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2014. As a result of that litigation,
`
`the Competitors are enjoined from launching their generic versions of COMBIGAN®
`
`until April 2022.
`
`FERRUM FERRO CAPITAL’S FALSE AND
` EXTORTIONATE CONDUCT
`
`30. Allergan incorporates and re-alleges Paragraphs 1-29 of this Complaint
`
`as if repeated verbatim in this Paragraph.
`
`31. On information and belief, FFC was formed as a Delaware Limited
`
`Liability Company on November 3, 2014.
`
`32. On information and belief, FFC is a privately held venture fund.
`
`33. On information and belief, Kevin Barnes is one of FFC’s founders.
`
`34. On information and belief, FFC has no principal place of business,
`
`maintaining merely a mail drop box located at 717 N. Union Street, #78, Wilmington,
`
`Delaware 19805. A photo of that location is available at https://maps.google.com/:
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL EXTORTION AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ARISING FROM U.S. PATENT LAWS
`Case No.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 7 of 18
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`35. Consistent with its “mail drop box” “place of business,” FFC’s website,
`
`http://www.ferrumferro.com, is a shell, with no information available on it about any
`
`of FFC’s supposed activities. A print-out of all of the pages of FFC’s website is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`36.
`
`Indeed, FFC’s website is almost identical to the website of another
`
`venture fund owned by Mr. Barnes, which he has named Hyacinth Sloop Capital,
`
`LLC. A print-out of all of the pages of Hyacinth Sloop Capital’s website,
`
`http://www.hyacinthsloop.com, is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`
`
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL EXTORTION AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ARISING FROM U.S. PATENT LAWS
`Case No.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 8 of 18
`
`

`
`
`
`37. On information and belief, FFC has no facilities in which to conduct
`
`research and development to create a generic formulation of Allergan’s
`
`COMBIGAN®, or any other pharmaceutical drug.
`
`38. On information and belief, FFC has not financed any research and
`
`development activities to create a generic formulation of Allergan’s COMBIGAN®,
`
`or any other pharmaceutical drug.
`
`39. On information and belief, FFC has hired no scientists or other personnel
`
`capable of performing any research and development activities to create a generic
`
`formulation of Allergan’s COMBIGAN®, or any other pharmaceutical drug.
`
`40. On information and belief, FFC has hired no regulatory or other
`
`personnel necessary to prepare, submit and prosecute an ANDA application for any
`
`generic drug with the FDA.
`
`41. On March 9, 2015, FFC sent a letter to Allergan. A copy of that letter is
`
`attached as Exhibit D.
`
`42. FFC’s March 9, 2015 letter falsely represented to Allergan that FFC was
`
`prepared to “seek [Federal Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)] approval via a
`
`Paragraph III ANDA filing to produce and market a generic brimonidine
`
`tartrate/timolol maleate ophthalmic solution with [an unnamed] Contract
`
`Manufacturing Partner (“CMP”).” Ex. D at 2.
`
`43. Attached to the March 9, 2015 letter, FFC included an incomplete
`
`“proposed FDA filing” for generic brimonidine tartrate/timolol maleate ophthalmic
`
`solution, attached hereto as Exhibit E. FFC’s “proposed ANDA filing” is clearly a
`
`sham.
`
`44.
`
`In the sham “proposed FDA filing,” FFC named its fictitious generic
`
`brimonidine tartrate/timolol maleate ophthalmic solution “Combivious,” apparently
`
`as some kind of play on the words “COMBIGAN®” and “obvious.” The fictitious
`
`ANDA filing further lists its date of submission as “03/XX/2015.” Moreover, FFC
`
`included only the first page of the three-page FDA application to market an
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL EXTORTION AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ARISING FROM U.S. PATENT LAWS
`Case No.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 9 of 18
`
`

`
`
`
`abbreviated new drug. Notably, FFC omitted the certification acknowledgment and
`
`the signature page of the form from what it sent Allergan.
`
`45. Also attached to the March 9, 2015 letter was an IPR petition that FFC
`
`filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) on March 9, 2015
`
`challenging the validity of Allergan’s ’149 patent. That IPR petition is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit F.
`
`46.
`
`IPR is a trial proceeding established by Congress and the President when
`
`they enacted into law the AIA, which amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. IPRs are
`
`conducted before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the PTO whereby a
`
`third party may seek a review of the patentability of one or more claims in a patent.
`
`47. The third party filer has the option to withdraw its IPR petition.
`
`48. FFC’s IPR petition is based on the same prior art as that previously
`
`argued by Allergan’s Competitors in the prior U.S. District Court and Court of
`
`Appeals litigation, namely the DeSantis, Timmermans, Stewart, and Larsson
`
`references. FFC’s IPR petition further raises the identical invalidity arguments over
`
`those references—obviousness—that the District Court and the Federal Circuit
`
`already rejected.
`
`49. Moreover, rather than accept the majority Federal Circuit opinion
`
`affirming the district court’s judgment on the ’149 patent, FFC’s IPR petition instead
`
`purports to rely on the dissenting opinion of Judge Dyk as a basis for asserting the
`
`’149 patent is invalid. In so doing, the IPR petition significantly and falsely
`
`characterizes what the dissent said about claim construction.
`
`50. FFC’s March 9, 2015 letter explicitly threatens Allergan with its IPR
`
`petition as follows: “[FFC] is confident that at a minimum, the IPR petition for the
`
`’149 patent presents a significant and terminal threat to Allergan’s exclusive rights to
`
`distribute Combigan.” Ex. D at 2.
`
`51.
`
`In an apparent effort to place additional pressure on Allergan, FFC’s
`
`March 9, 2015 letter highlighted the fact that “upon institution of the IPR by the
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL EXTORTION AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ARISING FROM U.S. PATENT LAWS
`Case No.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`

`
`
`
`PTAB, formerly time-barred defendants, such as [Allergan’s Competitors], will have
`
`the opportunity to file petitions of their own in the ongoing invalidation proceedings.”
`
`Id.
`
`52. FFC’s letter further stated that “Allergan should be mindful that FFC’s
`
`IPR could result in [Allergan’s Competitors] joining the fast-track challenge of the
`
`’149 patent.” Id.
`
`53.
`
`In the concluding part of its letter, FFC attempts to extract compensation
`
`from Allergan by stating that it “firmly believes that a company such as Allergan
`
`should be given a single opportunity to support FFC’s core social and investment
`
`interests before other time-barred producers are able to file for joinder in the ’149
`
`Patent IPR, and before FFC files additional IPR petitions against the COMBIGAN®
`
`patents and proceeds with a Paragraph III filing. As such, FFC is amenable to
`
`discussing an immediate and confidential settlement with Allergan.” Id. at 3.
`
`54. FFC’s letter set a deadline of March 18, 2015 for Allergan to contact
`
`FFC to discuss this “single opportunity” to “support” FFC’s “core social and
`
`investment interests” in settlement of FFC’s IPR petition. Id.
`
`55. On March 18, 2015, Allergan contacted FFC to obtain further
`
`information regarding FFC’s demands.
`
`56. On March 18, 2015, FFC, including Mr. Barnes, informed Allergan that
`
`it would not disclose its demands unless Allergan first signed a non-disclosure
`
`agreement. The draft non-disclosure agreement initially provided by FFC, in addition
`
`to requiring confidentiality of settlement discussions, contained a term that barred the
`
`use of anything learned under the non-disclosure agreement as a basis for bringing an
`
`action against Mr. Barnes or FFC. Allergan refused to sign such an NDA, but
`
`ultimately did enter into a modified NDA to speak to Mr. Barnes confidentially.
`
`57. While these activities were ongoing, Mr. Barnes—FFC’s founder—
`
`publicly stated that he sees “multiple pathways to monetization” of the IPR filing
`
`against the ’149 patent. That statement is attached hereto as Exhibit G, page 4.
`
`10
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL EXTORTION AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ARISING FROM U.S. PATENT LAWS
`Case No.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 11 of 18
`
`

`
`
`
`58.
`
`Indeed, Allergan has learned that Hyacinth Sloop Capital, LLC, Mr.
`
`Barnes’s other known entity, has threatened to file an IPR challenging the validity of
`
`another company’s patent that covers a different drug. Allergan suspects that
`
`Hyacinth Sloop and Mr. Barnes are similarly seeking to extort that other
`
`pharmaceutical company.
`
`59. Defendants’ (and third parties’) extortionate tactics necessarily raise
`
`questions regarding the scope and reach of the IPR procedure for challenging the
`
`validity of patents, involving substantial questions of patent law.
`
`COUNT I – ATTEMPTED CIVIL EXTORTION
` UNDER CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §§ 518 ET SEQ.
`
`60. Allergan incorporates and re-alleges Paragraphs 1-59 of this Complaint
`
`as if repeated verbatim in this Paragraph.
`
`61. Defendants’ IPR petition regarding the ’149 patent is objectively
`
`baseless and filed for an improper purpose. The IPR petition is based on the same
`
`prior art and the same grounds already rejected by the District Court and the Federal
`
`Circuit in the litigation between Allergan and the Competitors. Compounding the
`
`matter, the IPR relies on a false characterization of the Federal Circuit opinion.
`
`62. Defendants did not have and still do not have a reasonable basis for
`
`filing the IPR petition against the ’149 patent based on the same prior art and the
`
`same grounds that were already rejected by the U.S. District Court and the Federal
`
`Circuit in the litigation between Allergan and the Competitors.
`
`63. Defendants’ reason for filing the IPR petition is in an attempt to extort
`
`Allergan through the guise of providing Allergan a “single opportunity” to “support”
`
`FFC’s “core social and investment interests” in settlement of the IPR.
`
`64. As described above, Defendants sent to Allergan a letter expressly
`
`threatening Allergan if Allergan did not enter into an immediate and confidential
`
`settlement regarding the IPR petition. Because Defendants’ threats against the ’149
`
`patent are objectively baseless, Defendants’ conduct constitutes attempted extortion
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`11
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL EXTORTION AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ARISING FROM U.S. PATENT LAWS
`Case No.
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 18
`
`

`
`
`
`under California Penal Code §§ 519, 523 and 524, giving rise to this civil action.
`
`65. Defendants’ unlawful purpose in filing the IPR petition against the ’149
`
`patent and sending their letter to Allergan is further shown by Defendants’ fraudulent
`
`claims to be prepared to file an ANDA for a generic brimonidine/timolol combination
`
`product, and by proposing a name for it, “Combivious,” that is plainly a sham.
`
`66. Defendants’ unlawful purpose and their consciousness of the same is
`
`also manifest, by among other things, FFC’s initial refusal to provide any settlement
`
`terms absent Allergan signing a non-disclosure agreement that forbade Allergan from
`
`using any information learned in settlement talks as a grounds for bringing a lawsuit
`
`against Defendants.
`
`67. Further manifestation of Defendants’ unlawful purpose and
`
`consciousness of the same is demonstrated by Mr. Barnes’ admission that there are
`
`“multiple pathways to monetiz[e]” the IPR petition related to Allergan’s ’149 patent.
`
`68. Further manifestation of Defendants’ unlawful purpose and
`
`consciousness of the same is demonstrated by Defendants’ attempts to intimidate
`
`Allergan into settling quickly by threatening that “upon institution of the IPR by the
`
`PTAB, formerly time-barred defendants, such as [Allergan’s Competitors], will have
`
`the opportunity to file petitions of their own in the ongoing invalidation proceedings.”
`
`69. Defendants’ “settlement” offer is an attempt by FFC to use the threat of
`
`an objectively baseless IPR petition and fake ANDA filing to extort Allergan.
`
`70. Defendants have improperly used the IPR process because Defendants’
`
`statements and actions reveal that they do not have a genuine desire to proceed with
`
`the IPR or to invalidate Allergan’s ’149 patent, but rather used the IPR process in an
`
`effort to extort Allergan as Defendants knew that they could withdraw their IPR
`
`petition if Allergan succumbed to their demand.
`
`71. Defendants have improperly used the FDA’s ANDA process because
`
`Defendants do not have a desire or intent to proceed with a generic brimonidine
`
`tartrate/timolol maleate ophthalmic solution, but simply used the false “proposed
`
`12
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL EXTORTION AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ARISING FROM U.S. PATENT LAWS
`Case No.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 13 of 18
`
`

`
`
`
`FDA filing” to further Defendants’ efforts to extort Allergan as Defendants never
`
`actually formulated or filed for a generic solution.
`
`72. Defendants’ activities constitute attempted civil extortion under
`
`California law and are contrary to public policy.
`
`73. As a proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Allergan has suffered
`
`disruption to its business, loss of productivity, loss of business goodwill, substantial
`
`litigation expense, additional operational expense, and other damages in an amount to
`
`be proven at trial, but in any event in excess of $100,000.
`
`COUNT II – UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER CALIFORNIA BUSINESS &
`PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200 ET SEQ.
`
`74. Allergan incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1-73 of this Complaint as
`
`if repeated verbatim in this Paragraph.
`
`75. Defendants’ conduct described herein constitutes unfair, unlawful and/or
`
`fraudulent business acts or practices under California Business and Professions Code.
`
`§§ 17200 et seq., including but not limited to:
`
`a. Creating a limited liability company with no offices, and only a mail
`
`drop box for the purpose of attempting to extort Allergan;
`
`b. Preparing a false “proposed FDA filing” for a hypothetical generic
`
`brimonidine tartrate/timolol maleate ophthalmic solution in furtherance
`
`of Defendants’ attempts to extort Allergan through the guise of a
`
`settlement of the IPR proceeding;
`
`c. Falsely representing to Allergan that Defendants were prepared to “seek
`
`FDA approval via a Paragraph III ANDA filing to produce and market a
`
`generic brimonidine tartrate/timolol maleate ophthalmic solution with
`
`[an unnamed] Contract Manufacturing Partner (“CMP”)”;
`
`d. Filing an objectively baseless IPR petition for the unlawful purpose of
`
`extorting Allergan; and
`
`e. Attempting to intimidate Allergan into settling quickly by threatening
`
`13
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL EXTORTION AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ARISING FROM U.S. PATENT LAWS
`Case No.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 14 of 18
`
`

`
`
`
`that “upon institution of the IPR by the PTAB, formerly time-barred
`
`defendants, such as [Allergan’s Competitors], will have the opportunity
`
`to file petitions of their own in the ongoing invalidation proceedings.”
`
`76. As a proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Allergan has suffered
`
`disruption to its business, loss of productivity, loss of business goodwill, substantial
`
`litigation expense, additional operational expense, and other damages in an amount to
`
`be proven at trial, but in any event in excess of $100,000.
`
`COUNT III – MALICIOUS PROSECUTION UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW
`
`77. Allergan incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1-76 of this Complaint as
`
`if repeated verbatim in this Paragraph.
`
`78. Defendants’ conduct in filing the IPR petition constitutes malicious
`
`prosecution under California law by, among other things:
`
`a. Creating a limited liability company with no offices, and only a mail
`
`drop box for the purpose of attempting to extort Allergan;
`
`b. Filing an objectively baseless IPR petition for unlawful purpose of
`
`extorting Allergan;
`
`c. Preparing a false “proposed FDA filing” for a hypothetical generic
`
`brimonidine tartrate/timolol maleate ophthalmic solution in furtherance
`
`of Defendants’ attempts to extort Allergan through the guise of a
`
`settlement of the IPR proceeding;
`
`d. Falsely representing to Allergan that Defendants were prepared to “seek
`
`FDA approval via a Paragraph III ANDA filing to produce and market a
`
`generic brimonidine tartrate/timolol maleate ophthalmic solution with
`
`[an unnamed] Contract Manufacturing Partner (“CMP”)” in furtherance
`
`of Defendants’ attempts to extort Allergan through the guise of a
`
`settlement of the IPR proceedings; and
`
`e. Furthering their extortionate acts by attempting to intimidate Allergan
`
`into settling quickly with threats that “upon institution of the IPR by the
`
`14
`COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL EXTORTION AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ARISING FROM U.S. PATENT LAWS
`Case No.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 15 of 18
`
`

`
`
`
`PTAB, formerly time-barred defendants, such as [Allergan’s
`
`Competitors], will have the opportunity to file petitions of their own in
`
`the ongoing invalidation proceedings.”
`
`79. As a proximate and substantial cause of Defendants’ actions, including
`
`the filing and maintenance of an objectively baseless IPR petition, Allergan has
`
`suffered disruption to its business, loss of productivity, loss of business goodwill,
`
`substantial litigation expense, additional operational expense, and other damages in
`
`an amount to be proven at trial, but in any event in excess of $100,000.1
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Allergan, Inc., and Allergan Sales, LLC prays for the
`
`following relief against Defendants:
`
`1.
`
`For judgment in favor of Allergan that Defendants have engaged in
`
`attempted civil extortion in violation of California Penal Code §§ 519 et seq.;
`
`2.
`
`For judgment in favor of Allergan that Defendants have violated
`
`California’s unfair competition law, codified at Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.;
`
`3.
`
`For judgment in favor of Allergan that Defendants’ filing and
`
`maintenance of an objectively baseless IPR constitutes malicious prosecution under
`
`California law;
`
`4.
`
`For a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, including their
`
`officers, agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert or participation with
`
`them who receive actual notice of the Court’s Order, from pursuing the objectively
`
`baseless IPR petition that Defendants filed against Allergan’s ’149 patent or any other
`
`IPR petitions against Allergan;
`
`5.
`
`For a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, including their
`
`officers, agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert or participation with
`
`
`1 Allergan recognizes that a claim for malicious prosecution requires that the objectively
`baseless IPR have concluded in its favor. However, given PTAB’s statutory timeline for deciding
`an IPR – 6 months from filing for the institution decision or 18 months from filing for a final
`decision – Allergan thought it judicially economical and prudent to allege the cause of action now
`rather than have t