Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 817-1 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 1 of 16(cid:10)
`
`
`
`Charles M. Lizza
`William C. Baton
`LEBOEUF, LAMB, GREENE & MACRAE LLP
`One Riverfront Plaza
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`Telephone: (973) 643-8000
`Facsimile: (973) 643-6111
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Celgene Corporation
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`Civil Action No. _______________
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`(Filed Electronically)
`
`
`
`
`CELGENE CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BARR LABORATORIES, INC. and
`BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Celgene Corporation (“Celgene”), by its undersigned attorneys, brings this
`
`action against defendants, Barr Laboratories, Inc. and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for patent
`
`infringement and alleges as follows:
`
`Nature of the Action
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, 35 United States Code, arising from Barr Laboratories, Inc.’s filing of an Abbreviated
`
`New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the United States Food and Drug Administration
`
`(“FDA”) seeking approval to commercially market a generic version of Celgene’s THALOMID®
`
`prior to the expiration of certain patents owned by Celgene that cover that product’s use, i.e.,
`
`CFAD VI 1039 - 0001
`CFAD VI v. CELGENE
`IPR2015-01102
`
`

`
`Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 817-1 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 2 of 16(cid:10)
`
`United States Patent Nos. 6,045,501 (the ‘501 patent”), 6,315,720 (“the ‘720 patent”), 6,561,976
`
`(“the ‘976 patent”), 6,561,977 (“the ‘977 patent”), 6,755,784 (“the ‘784 patent”), 6,869,399 (“the
`
`‘399 patent”), and 7,141,018 (“the ‘018 patent”) (collectively, “the patents-in-suit”).
`
`The Parties
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Celgene is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 86 Morris Avenue, Summit, New
`
`Jersey 07901.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, defendant Barr Laboratories, Inc. is a corporation
`
`having a principal place of business at 223 Quaker Road, Pomona, New York 10970.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, defendant Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a place of business at 400
`
`Chestnut Ridge Road, Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, defendant Barr Laboratories, Inc. is a subsidiary of
`
`defendant Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Barr Laboratories, Inc. and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`are registered to do business in New Jersey. Further, on information and belief, Barr
`
`Laboratories, Inc. and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. maintain executive offices and a manufacturing
`
`facility and otherwise transact business within this District.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, the acts of Barr Laboratories, Inc. complained of
`
`herein were done at the direction of, with the authorization of, or with the cooperation,
`
`participation, or assistance of, or at least in part for the benefit of, Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`CFAD VI 1039 - 0002
`
`

`
`Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 817-1 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 3 of 16(cid:10)
`
`8.
`
`Barr Laboratories, Inc. and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. are referred to hereinafter,
`
`collectively, as “Barr.”
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`9.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) and 2201 and 2202.
`
`
`
`10.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Barr by virtue of the fact that Barr has
`
`availed itself of the laws of New Jersey and conducts business in New Jersey.
`
`11.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`The Patents in Suit
`
`12.
`
`On April 4, 2000, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`
`duly and lawfully issued the ‘501 patent, entitled “Methods for Delivering a Drug to a Patient
`
`While Preventing the Exposure of a Foetus or Other Contraindicated Individual to the Drug” to
`
`Celgene as assignee of the inventors Marc Elsayed and Bruce Williams. A copy of the ‘501
`
`patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`13.
`
`On November 13, 2001, the USPTO duly and lawfully issued the ‘720 patent,
`
`entitled “Methods for Delivering a Drug to a Patient While Avoiding the Occurrence of an
`
`Adverse Side Effect Known or Suspected of Being Caused by the Drug” to Celgene as assignee
`
`of the inventors Bruce A. Williams and Joseph K. Kaminski. A copy of the ‘720 patent is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`14.
`
`On May 13, 2003, the USPTO duly and lawfully issued the ‘976 patent, entitled
`
`“Methods for Delivering a Drug to a Patient While Preventing the Exposure of a Foetus or Other
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`CFAD VI 1039 - 0003
`
`

`
`Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 817-1 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 4 of 16(cid:10)
`
`Contraindicated Individual to the Drug” to Celgene as assignee of the inventors Marc Elsayed
`
`and Bruce Williams. A copy of the ‘976 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`15.
`
`On May 13, 2003, the USPTO duly and lawfully issued the ‘977 patent, entitled
`
`“Methods for Delivering a Drug to a Patient While Restricting Access to the Drug by Patients for
`
`Whom the Drug May be Contraindicated” to Celgene as assignee of the inventors Bruce A.
`
`Williams and Joseph K. Kaminski. A copy of the ‘977 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`16.
`
`On June 29, 2004, the USPTO duly and lawfully issued the ‘784 patent, entitled
`
`“Methods for Delivering a Drug to a Patient While Restricting Access to the Drug by Patients for
`
`Whom the Drug May be Contraindicated” to Celgene as assignee of the inventors Bruce A.
`
`Williams and Joseph K. Kaminski. On May 3, 2005, a certificate of correction was granted by
`
`the USPTO to correct a typographical error in claim 29 of the ‘784 patent. A copy of the ‘784
`
`patent and its certificate of correction is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`17.
`
`On March 22, 2005, the USPTO duly and lawfully issued the ‘399 patent, entitled
`
`“Methods for Delivering a Drug to a Patient While Restricting Access to the Drug by Patients for
`
`Whom the Drug May be Contraindicated” to Celgene as assignee of the inventors Bruce A.
`
`Williams and Joseph K. Kaminski. On March 7, 2006, a certificate of correction was granted by
`
`the USPTO to correct typographical errors in claim 19 of the ‘399 patent. A copy of the ‘399
`
`patent and its certificate of correction is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
`
`18.
`
`On November 28, 2006, the USPTO duly and lawfully issued the ‘018 patent,
`
`entitled “Methods for Delivering a Drug to a Patient While Restricting Access to the Drug by
`
`Patients for Whom the Drug May be Contraindicated” to Celgene as assignee of the inventors
`
`Bruce A. Williams and Joseph K. Kaminski. A copy of the ‘018 patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit G.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`CFAD VI 1039 - 0004
`
`

`
`Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 817-1 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 5 of 16(cid:10)
`
`The THALOMID® Drug Product
`
`19.
`
`Celgene holds an approved New Drug Application (“NDA”) under Section 505(a)
`
`of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FFDCA”), 21 U.S.C. § 355(a) for thalidomide
`
`capsules (NDA No. 20-785), which it sells under the trade name THALOMID®. The claims of the
`
`‘501, ’720, ‘976, ‘977, ‘784, ‘399 and ‘018 patents cover, inter alia, methods of use and delivery
`
`of pharmaceutical compositions containing the drug thalidomide.
`
`20.
`
`Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(1) and attendant FDA regulations, the ‘501, ’720,
`
`‘976, ‘977, ‘784, ‘399 and ‘018 patents are listed in the FDA publication, “Approved Drug
`
`Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” (the “Orange Book”), with respect to
`
`THALOMID®.
`
`Acts Giving Rise to this Suit
`
`21.
`
`Pursuant to Section 505 of the FFDCA, Barr filed an ANDA for thalidomide
`
`capsules, seeking approval to engage in the commercial use, manufacture, sale, offer for sale or
`
`importation of thalidomide capsules 50 mg, 100 mg and 200 mg (“Barr’s Proposed Products”),
`
`before the patents-in-suit expire. The Barr ANDA number is 78-505.
`
`22.
`
`In connection with the filing of its ANDA as described in the preceding
`
`paragraph, Barr has provided written certification to the FDA, as called for by Section 505 of the
`
`FFDCA, which alleges that the claims of the ‘501, ’720, ‘976, ‘977, ‘784, ‘399 and ‘018 patents
`
`are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by the activities described in Barr’s
`
`ANDA.
`
`23.
`
`No earlier than December 6, 2006, Barr sent written notice of its ANDA filing to
`
`Celgene. The notice alleged that the claims of the ‘501, ’720, ‘976, ‘977, ‘784, ‘399, and ‘018
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`CFAD VI 1039 - 0005
`
`

`
`Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 817-1 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 6 of 16(cid:10)
`
`patents are invalid, unenforceable, and/or will not be infringed by Barr. Barr’s notice also
`
`informed Celgene that Barr seeks approval to market Barr’s Proposed Products before the
`
`patents-in-suit expire.
`
`24.
`
`This action is being brought pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(B)(iii) within 45
`
`days of Celgene’s receipt of Barr’s notice.
`
`Count I: Barr’s Filing of the ANDA Infringes the ‘501 Patent
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1-24 as though fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`26.
`
`Barr’s submission of its ANDA to obtain approval to engage in the commercial
`
`use, manufacture, sale, offer for sale or importation of thalidomide capsules, prior to the
`
`expiration of the ‘501 patent, constitutes infringement of one or more of the claims of that patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A).
`
`
`
`27.
`
`There is a justiciable controversy between the parties hereto as to infringement of
`
`the ‘501 patent.
`
`
`
`28.
`
`Unless enjoined by this Court, Barr, upon FDA approval of Barr’s ANDA, will
`
`infringe the ‘501 patent by making, using, offering to sell, importing, and selling Barr’s Proposed
`
`Products in the United States.
`
`29.
`
`Celgene will be substantially and irreparably damaged and harmed if Barr’s
`
`infringement of the ‘501 patent is not enjoined.
`
`30.
`
`Celgene does not have an adequate remedy at law.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`CFAD VI 1039 - 0006
`
`

`
`Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 817-1 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 7 of 16(cid:10)
`
`31.
`
`This case is an exceptional one, and Celgene is entitled to an award of its
`
`reasonable attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`Count II: Barr’s Filing of the ANDA Infringes the ‘720 Patent
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1-31 as though fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`33.
`
`Barr’s submission of its ANDA to obtain approval to engage in the commercial
`
`use, manufacture, sale, offer for sale or importation of thalidomide capsules, prior to the
`
`expiration of the ‘720 patent, constitutes infringement of one or more of the claims of that patent
`
`as issued under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A).
`
`
`
`34.
`
`There is a justiciable controversy between the parties hereto as to infringement of
`
`the ‘720 patent.
`
`
`
`35.
`
`Unless enjoined by this Court, Barr, upon FDA approval of Barr’s ANDA, will
`
`infringe the ‘720 patent by making, using, offering to sell, importing, and selling Barr’s Proposed
`
`Products in the United States.
`
`36.
`
`Celgene will be substantially and irreparably damaged and harmed if Barr’s
`
`infringement of the ‘720 patent is not enjoined.
`
`37.
`
`Celgene does not have an adequate remedy at law.
`
`38.
`
`This case is an exceptional one, and Celgene is entitled to an award of its
`
`reasonable attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`CFAD VI 1039 - 0007
`
`

`
`Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 817-1 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 8 of 16(cid:10)
`
`Count III: Barr’s Filing of the ANDA Infringes the ‘976 Patent
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1-38 as though fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`40.
`
`Barr’s submission of its ANDA to obtain approval to engage in the commercial
`
`use, manufacture, sale, offer for sale or importation of thalidomide capsules, prior to the
`
`expiration of the ‘976 patent, constitutes infringement of one or more of the claims of that patent
`
`as issued under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A).
`
`
`
`41.
`
`There is a justiciable controversy between the parties hereto as to infringement of
`
`the ‘976 patent.
`
`
`
`42.
`
`Unless enjoined by this Court, Barr, upon FDA approval of Barr’s ANDA, will
`
`infringe the ‘976 patent by making, using, offering to sell, importing, and selling Barr’s Proposed
`
`Products in the United States.
`
`43.
`
`Celgene will be substantially and irreparably damaged and harmed if Barr’s
`
`infringement of the ‘976 patent is not enjoined.
`
`44.
`
`Celgene does not have an adequate remedy at law.
`
`45.
`
`This case is an exceptional one, and Celgene is entitled to an award of its
`
`reasonable attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`Count IV: Barr’s Filing of the ANDA Infringes the ‘977 Patent
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1-45 as though fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`CFAD VI 1039 - 0008
`
`

`
`Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 817-1 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 9 of 16(cid:10)
`
`47.
`
`Barr’s submission of its ANDA to obtain approval to engage in the commercial
`
`use, manufacture, sale, offer for sale or importation of thalidomide capsules, prior to the
`
`expiration of the ‘977 patent, constitutes infringement of one or more of the claims of that patent
`
`as issued under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A).
`
`
`
`48.
`
`There is a justiciable controversy between the parties hereto as to infringement of
`
`the ‘977 patent.
`
`
`
`49.
`
`Unless enjoined by this Court, Barr, upon FDA approval of Barr’s ANDA, will
`
`infringe the ‘977 patent by making, using, offering to sell, importing, and selling Barr’s Proposed
`
`Products in the United States.
`
`50.
`
`Celgene will be substantially and irreparably damaged and harmed if Barr’s
`
`infringement of the ‘977 patent is not enjoined.
`
`51.
`
`Celgene does not have an adequate remedy at law.
`
`52.
`
`This case is an exceptional one, and Celgene is entitled to an award of its
`
`reasonable attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`Count V: Barr’s Filing of the ANDA Infringes the ‘784 Patent
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1-52 as though fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`54.
`
`Barr’s submission of its ANDA to obtain approval to engage in the commercial
`
`use, manufacture, sale, offer for sale or importation of thalidomide capsules, prior to the
`
`expiration of the ‘784 patent, constitutes infringement of one or more of the claims of that patent
`
`as issued under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A).
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`CFAD VI 1039 - 0009
`
`

`
`Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 817-1 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 10 of 16(cid:10)
`
`
`
`55.
`
`There is a justiciable controversy between the parties hereto as to infringement of
`
`the ‘784 patent.
`
`
`
`56.
`
`Unless enjoined by this Court, Barr, upon FDA approval of Barr’s ANDA, will
`
`infringe the ‘784 patent by making, using, offering to sell, importing, and selling Barr’s Proposed
`
`Products in the United States.
`
`57.
`
`Celgene will be substantially and irreparably damaged and harmed if Barr’s
`
`infringement of the ‘784 patent is not enjoined.
`
`58.
`
`Celgene does not have an adequate remedy at law.
`
`59.
`
`This case is an exceptional one, and Celgene is entitled to an award of its
`
`reasonable attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`Count VI: Barr’s Filing of the ANDA Infringes the ‘399 Patent
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1-59 as though fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`61.
`
`Barr’s submission of its ANDA to obtain approval to engage in the commercial
`
`use, manufacture, sale, offer for sale or importation of thalidomide capsules, prior to the
`
`expiration of the ‘399 patent, constitutes infringement of one or more of the claims of that patent
`
`as issued under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A).
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`CFAD VI 1039 - 0010
`
`

`
`Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 817-1 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 11 of 16(cid:10)
`
`
`
`62.
`
`There is a justiciable controversy between the parties hereto as to infringement of
`
`the ‘399 patent.
`
`
`
`63.
`
`Unless enjoined by this Court, Barr, upon FDA approval of Barr’s ANDA, will
`
`infringe the ‘399 patent by making, using, offering to sell, importing, and selling Barr’s Proposed
`
`Products in the United States.
`
`64.
`
`Celgene will be substantially and irreparably damaged and harmed if Barr’s
`
`infringement of the ‘399 patent is not enjoined.
`
`65.
`
`Celgene does not have an adequate remedy at law.
`
`66.
`
`This case is an exceptional one, and Celgene is entitled to an award of its
`
`reasonable attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`Count VII: Barr’s Filing of the ANDA Infringes the ‘018 Patent
`
`67.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1-66 as though fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`68.
`
`Barr’s submission of its ANDA to obtain approval to engage in the commercial
`
`use, manufacture, sale, offer for sale or importation of thalidomide capsules, prior to the
`
`expiration of the ‘018 patent, constitutes infringement of one or more of the claims of that patent
`
`as issued under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A).
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`CFAD VI 1039 - 0011
`
`

`
`Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 817-1 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 12 of 16(cid:10)
`
`
`
`69.
`
`There is a justiciable controversy between the parties hereto as to infringement of
`
`the ‘018 patent.
`
`
`
`70.
`
`Unless enjoined by this Court, Barr, upon FDA approval of Barr’s ANDA, will
`
`infringe the ‘018 patent by making, using, offering to sell, importing, and selling Barr’s Proposed
`
`Products in the United States.
`
`71.
`
`Celgene will be substantially and irreparably damaged and harmed if Barr’s
`
`infringement of the ‘018 patent is not enjoined.
`
`72.
`
`Celgene does not have an adequate remedy at law.
`
`73.
`
`This case is an exceptional one, and Celgene is entitled to an award of its
`
`reasonable attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`Count VIII: Inducing Infringement
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1-73 as though fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`75.
`
`Upon information and belief, Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has infringed the ‘501,
`
`’720, ‘976, ‘977, ‘784, ‘399, and ‘018 patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively inducing
`
`Barr Laboratories, Inc. to infringe the ‘501, ’720, ‘976, ‘977, ‘784, ‘399, and ‘018 patents.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Celgene Corporation respectfully requests the following relief:
`
`(A) A judgment be entered that Defendants have infringed the ‘501, ’720, ‘976, ‘977,
`
`‘784, ‘399, and ‘018 patents by submitting the aforementioned ANDA;
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`CFAD VI 1039 - 0012
`
`

`
`Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 817-1 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 13 of 16(cid:10)
`
`(B) A judgment be entered that Defendants have infringed, and that Defendants’
`
`making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing Barr’s Proposed Products will infringe one
`
`or more claims of the ‘501, ’720, ‘976, ‘977, ‘784, ‘399, and ‘018 patents;
`
`(C) An Order that the effective date of FDA approval of ANDA No. 78-505 be a date
`
`which is not earlier than the later of the expiration of the ‘501, ’720, ‘976, ‘977, ‘784, ‘399,
`
`and/or ‘018 patents, or any later expiration of exclusivity to which Plaintiff is or becomes
`
`entitled;
`
`(D)
`
`Preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendants and their officers,
`
`agents, attorneys and employees, and those acting in privity or concert with them, from making,
`
`using, selling, offering to sell, or importing Barr’s Proposed Products until after the expiration of
`
`the ‘501, ’720, ‘976, ‘977, ‘784, ‘399, and/or ‘018 patents, or any later expiration of exclusivity
`
`to which Plaintiff is or becomes entitled;
`
`(E)
`
`A permanent injunction be issued, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B),
`
`restraining and enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, attorneys and employees, and those
`
`acting in privity or concert with them, from practicing any methods as claimed in the ‘501, ’720,
`
`‘976, ‘977, ‘784, ‘399, and/or ‘018 patents, or from actively inducing or contributing to the
`
`infringement of the ‘501, ’720, ‘976, ‘977, ‘784, ‘399, and/or ‘018 patents until after their
`
`expiration, or any later expiration of exclusivity to which Plaintiff is or becomes entitled;
`
`(F)
`
`A declaration that the commercial manufacture, use, importation into the United
`
`States, sale, or offer for sale of Barr’s Proposed Products will directly infringe or induce and/or
`
`contribute to infringement of the ‘501, ’720, ‘976, ‘977, ‘784, ‘399, and/or ‘018 patents, or any
`
`later expiration of exclusivity to which Plaintiff is or becomes entitled;
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`CFAD VI 1039 - 0013
`
`

`
`Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 817-1 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 14 of 16(cid:10)
`Case 2:33—av—00001
`Document 817-1
`Filed 01/18/2007
`Page 14 of 16
`
`(G)
`
`To the extent that Defendants have committed any acts with respect to the
`
`methods ciaimed in the ‘SUE, "720, ‘976, ‘977, ‘784, ‘399, and ‘OIS patents, other than those acts
`
`expressly exempted by 35 USC. § 271(c)(1), Piaintiff be awarded damages for such acts;
`
`(B)
`
`If Defendants engage in the commercial manufacture, use, importation into the
`
`United States, sale, or offer for sale of Barr’s Proposed Products prior to the expiration of the
`
`‘$01, ’720, ‘976, ‘977, ‘784, ‘399, and ‘OES patents, ajudgment awarding damages to Plaintiff
`
`resetting from such infringement together with interest;
`
`(I)
`
`Attorneys fees in this action as an exceptionai case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 2.85;
`
`(1)
`
`Costs and expenses in this action; and
`
`(K)
`
`Such further and other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`
` Charles M. Lizza
`William C. Baton
`LEBOEUF, LAMB, GREENE & MACRAE LLP
`One Riverfront Plaza
`
`Newark, New Jersey 07102-5490
`Telephone: (973) 643-8000
`Facsimile:
`(973) 643-6111
`
`Atrorrteyirfor Plaz'nnjffCelger1e Corporation
`
`Dated: January 18, 2007
`
`By:
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`F. Dominic Cerrito
`Daniel L. Malone
`JONES DAY
`
`222 East 415‘ Street
`New York, New York 10017-6702
`
`Telephone: (212) 326-3939
`Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
`
`-14-
`
`CFAD VI 1039 - 0014
`
`

`
`Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 817-1 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 15 of 16(cid:10)
`
`
`Daniel E. Reidy
`JONES DAY
`77 West Wacker
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`Telephone: (312) 269-4140
`Facsimile: (312) 782-8585
`
`Richard G. Greco
`Benjamin C. Hsing
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`425 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10022-3598
`Telephone: (212) 836-8500
`Facsimile: (212) 836-8689
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CFAD VI 1039 - 0015
`
`

`
`Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 817-1 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 16 of 16(cid:10)
`Case 2:33—av-00001
`Document 817-1
`Filed 01/18/2007
`Page 16 of 16
`
`LOCAL CIVIL RULE 11.2 CERTIFICATION
`
`I hereby certify that the matter in controversy is not the subj ect of any other action
`
`pending in any court, or of any pending arbitration or administrative proceeding.
`
`/8;
`
`5,
`if Q .
`
`
`
`
`3
`Charles M. Lizza
`
`8-“
`William C. Baton
`LEBOEUF, LAMB, GREENE & MACRAE LLP
`One Riverfront Plaza
`
`
`
`
`
`Newark, New Jersey 07102-5490
`Telephone: (973) 643-8000
`Facsimile: (973) 643-6111
`
`Attorneys for Plainttf]'Celgene Corporation
`
`Dated: January 18, 2007
`
`By:
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`F. Dominic Cerrito
`Daniel L. Malone
`JONES DAY
`
`222 East 41“ Street
`
`New York, New York 10017-6702
`Telephone: (212) 326-3939
`Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
`
`Daniel E. Reidy
`JONES DAY
`77 West Wacker
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`Telephone: (312) 269-4140
`Facsimile: (312) 782-8585
`
`Richard G. Greco
`
`Benjamin C. Hsing
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`425 Park Avenue
`
`New York, New York 10022-3598
`Telephone: (212) 836-8500
`Facsimile: (212) 836-8689
`
`CFAD VI 1039 - 0016