throbber
Arnold B. Calmann (abc@saiber.com)
`Jeffrey Soos (js@saiber.com)
`Katherine A. Escanlar (kae@saiber.com)
`SAIBER LLC
`One Gateway Center, 10th Floor
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`Telephone: (973) 662-3333
`Facsimile: (973) 286-2465
`
`Deepro R. Mukerjee (deepro.mukerjee@alston.com)
`Lance A. Soderstrom (lance.soderstrom@alston.com)
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`(212) 210-9400
`
`Attorneys for Defendants InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.,
`InnoPharma Licensing LLC, InnoPharma, Inc.,
`and InnoPharma, LLC
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`BAUSCH & LOMB, INC. and BAUSCH &
`LOMB PHARMA HOLDINGS CORP.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`INNOPHARMA LICENSING, INC.,
`INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC,
`INNOPHARMA, INC., and INNOPHARMA,
`LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.:
`1:14-cv-06893-JBS-KMW
`
`Document Filed Electronically
`
`ANSWER, SEPARATE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF
`DEFENDANTS INNOPHARMA LICENSING, INC., INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC,
`INNOPHARMA, INC., AND INNOPHARMA LLC
`
`Defendants InnoPharma Licensing, Inc., InnoPharma Licensing LLC, InnoPharma, Inc.,
`
`and InnoPharma, LLC (collectively “InnoPharma” or “Defendants”) by and through their
`
`
`PAGE 1 OF 37
`
`SENJU EXHIBIT 2003
`INNOPHARMA v SENJU
`IPR2016-00090
`
`

`
`counsel, hereby answer the Complaint of Plaintiffs Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Bausch &
`
`Lomb Incorporated, and Bausch & Lomb Pharma Holdings Corp., (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and
`
`assert their separate defenses and counterclaims as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Senju”) is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of Japan, with a principal place of business at 2-5-8, Hirano-machi,
`
`Chuo-ku, Osaka 541-0046, Japan.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint and therefore deny them.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Bausch & Lomb Incorporated (“B+L”) is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of New York, with a place of business at 1400 North Goodman St.,
`
`Rochester, New York 14609. B+L is the registered holder of approved New Drug Application
`
`(“NDA”) No. 203168, which covers Prolensa®.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants aver that the Orange Book as of the date of this answer currently
`
`lists B+L as the purported registered holder of New Drug Application (“NDA”) No. 203168,
`
`which purportedly covers Prolensa®. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint and
`
`therefore deny them.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Bausch & Lomb Pharma Holdings Corp. (“B+L Pharma Holdings”) is a
`
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with a place of business at 700
`
`Route 202/206, Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807. B+L Pharma Holdings is a wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of B+L.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint and therefore deny them.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`PAGE 2 OF 37
`
`

`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, defendant InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. is a
`
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, having a principal place of
`
`business at 10 Knightsbridge Road, Picastaway (sic), New Jersey 08854.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, defendant InnoPharma Licensing, LLC is a limited
`
`liability company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, having a principal place of
`
`business at 10 Knightsbridge Road, Picastaway (sic), New Jersey 08854.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`6.
`
` Upon information and belief, defendant InnoPharma Inc. is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 10
`
`Knightsbridge Road, Picastaway (sic), New Jersey 08854.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, defendant InnoPharma, LLC is a limited liability
`
`company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, having a principal place of
`
`business at 10 Knightsbridge Road, Picastaway (sic), New Jersey 08854.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`8.
`
`This is an action for infringement of United States Patent No. 8,129,431 (“the
`
`’431 patent”), 8,669,290 (“the ’290 patent”), 8,754,131 (“the ’131 patent”), and 8,871,813
`
`(“the ’813 patent”) arising under the United States patent laws, Title 35, United States Code, §
`
`100 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281. This action relates to InnoPharma Licensing,
`
`Inc.’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) under Section 505(j) of the
`
`Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“the Act”), 21 U.S.C. § 355(j), seeking U.S. Food and
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`PAGE 3 OF 37
`
`

`
`Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval to market generic Bromfenac Ophthalmic Solution
`
`0.07% (“InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s generic bromfenac ophthalmic solution”).
`
`ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiffs’ Complaint purports to state an action for
`
`patent infringement. Defendants further admit that the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs purports to
`
`state an action relating to an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) No. 206326
`
`purportedly filed by InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. with the United States Food and Drug
`
`Administration (“FDA”). To the extent an answer to any factual allegation not otherwise
`
`addressed herein is required, Defendants deny said allegation.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`ANSWER: For the purposes of this action only, Defendants do not contest subject matter
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). To the extent an answer to any factual
`
`allegation not otherwise addressed herein is required, Defendants deny said allegation.
`
`10. Upon information and belief, this Court has jurisdiction over InnoPharma
`
`Licensing, Inc. Upon information and belief, InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. is in the business of
`
`licensing, manufacturing, distributing and selling pharmaceutical products, including generic
`
`drug products. Upon information and belief, InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. directly licenses,
`
`manufactures, markets and sells generic drug products throughout the United States and in this
`
`judicial district, and this judicial district is a likely destination for InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s
`
`generic bromfenac ophthalmic solution. Upon information and belief, InnoPharma Licensing,
`
`Inc. operates as a patent owner or lessor for InnoPharma, Inc., whose principal place of business
`
`is, on information and belief, at 10 Knightsbridge Road, Picastaway (sic), New Jersey 08854,
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`PAGE 4 OF 37
`
`

`
`and has thereby purposefully and systematically conducted and continues to conduct business in
`
`this judicial district.
`
`ANSWER: To conserve the resources of the parties and the Court, InnoPharma
`
`Licensing, Inc. does not contest personal jurisdiction in this judicial district for the limited
`
`purpose of this action only and for the limited purpose of the product covered by ANDA No.
`
`206326 which is the subject of the Complaint. InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
`
`11.
`
`Upon information and belief, this Court has jurisdiction over InnoPharma
`
`Licensing, LLC. Upon information and belief, InnoPharma Licensing, LLC is in the business of
`
`licensing, manufacturing, distributing and selling pharmaceutical products, including generic
`
`drug products. Upon information and belief, InnoPharma Licensing, LLC directly licenses,
`
`manufactures, markets and sells generic drug products throughout the United States and in this
`
`judicial district, and this judicial district is a likely destination for InnoPharma Licensing, LLC’s
`
`generic bromfenac ophthalmic solution. Upon information and belief, InnoPharma Licensing,
`
`LLC operates as a patent owner or lessor for InnoPharma, LLC, whose principal place of
`
`business is, on information and belief, at 10 Knightsbridge Road, Picastaway (sic), New Jersey
`
`08854, and has thereby purposefully and systematically conducted and continues to conduct
`
`business in this judicial district.
`
`ANSWER: To conserve the resources of the parties and the Court, InnoPharma
`
`Licensing, LLC does not contest personal jurisdiction in this judicial district for the limited
`
`purpose of this action only and for the limited purpose of the product covered by ANDA No.
`
`206326 which is the subject of the Complaint. InnoPharma Licensing, LLC denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`PAGE 5 OF 37
`
`

`
`12.
`
`Upon information and belief, this court has jurisdiction over InnoPharma, Inc.
`
`Upon information and belief, InnoPharma, Inc. directly, or indirectly, manufactures, markets and
`
`sells generic drug products, including generic drug products manufactured by InnoPharma
`
`Licensing, Inc. and InnoPharma Licensing, LLC, throughout the United States and in this
`
`judicial district. Upon information and belief, InnoPharma, Inc. purposefully has conducted and
`
`continues to conduct business in this judicial district.
`
`ANSWER: To conserve the resources of the parties and the Court, InnoPharma, Inc.
`
`does not contest personal jurisdiction in this judicial district for the limited purpose of this
`
`action only and for the limited purpose of the product covered by ANDA No. 206326 which is
`
`the subject of the Complaint. InnoPharma, Inc. otherwise denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
`
`13.
`
`Upon information and belief, this court has jurisdiction over InnoPharma, LLC.
`
`Upon information and belief, InnoPharma, LLC directly, or indirectly, manufactures, markets
`
`and sells generic drug products, including generic drug products manufactured by InnoPharma
`
`Licensing, Inc. and InnoPharma Licensing, LLC, throughout the United States and in this
`
`judicial district. Upon information and belief, InnoPharma, LLC purposefully has conducted and
`
`continues to conduct business in this judicial district.
`
`ANSWER: To conserve the resources of the parties and the Court, InnoPharma, LLC
`
`does not contest personal jurisdiction in this judicial district for the limited purpose of this action
`
`only and for the limited purpose of the product covered by ANDA No. 206326 which is the
`
`subject of the Complaint. InnoPharma, LLC otherwise denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`PAGE 6 OF 37
`
`

`
`14. Upon information and belief, venue is proper in this judicial district under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and (d), and § 1400(b).
`
`ANSWER: To conserve the resources of the parties and the Court, Defendants do not
`
`contest venue in this judicial district for the limited purpose of this action only. Defendants
`
`otherwise deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
`
`THE PATENTS IN SUIT
`
`15.
`
`The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued the ’431 patent on
`
`March 6, 2012. The ’431 patent claims, inter alia, formulations of bromfenac for ophthalmic
`
`administration. Plaintiffs hold all substantial rights in the ’431 patent and have the right to
`
`sue for infringement thereof. Senju is the assignee of the ’431 patent. A copy of the ’431
`
`patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants admit that the face of the ’431 patent purports the date of the
`
`issuance of the patent to be March 6, 2012. Defendants further admit that the face of the ’431
`
`patent currently lists Senju as the assignee of the ’431 patent. Defendants admit that what
`
`purports to be a copy of the ’431 patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. Defendants
`
`lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint and therefore deny them.
`
`16.
`
`The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued the ’290 patent on
`
`March 11, 2014. The ’290 patent claims, inter alia, formulations of bromfenac for
`
`ophthalmic administration. Plaintiffs hold all substantial rights in the ’290 patent and have
`
`the right to sue for infringement thereof. Senju is the assignee of the ’290 patent. A copy of
`
`the ’290 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants admit that the face of the ’290 patent purports the date of the
`
`issuance of the patent to be March 11, 2014. Defendants further admit that the face of the ’290
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`PAGE 7 OF 37
`
`

`
`patent currently lists Senju as the assignee of the ’290 patent. Defendants admit that what
`
`purports to be a copy of the ’290 patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B. Defendants
`
`lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint and therefore deny them.
`
`17.
`
`The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued the ’131 patent on June
`
`17, 2014. The ’131 patent claims, inter alia, formulations of bromfenac for ophthalmic
`
`administration. Plaintiffs hold all substantial rights in the ’131 patent and have the right to
`
`sue for infringement thereof. Senju is the assignee of the ’131 patent. A copy of the ’131
`
`patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants admit that the face of the ’131 patent purports the date of the
`
`issuance of the patent to be June 17, 2014. Defendants further admit that the face of the ’131
`
`patent currently lists Senju as the assignee of the ’131 patent. Defendants admit that what
`
`purports to be a copy of the ’131 patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit C. Defendants
`
`lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint and therefore deny them.
`
`18.
`
`The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued the ’813 patent on October
`
`28, 2014. The ’813 patent claims, inter alia, formulations of bromfenac for ophthalmic
`
`administration. Plaintiffs hold all substantial rights in the ’813 patent and have the right to sue for
`
`infringement thereof. Senju is the assignee of the ’813 patent. A copy of the ’813 patent is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants admit that the face of the ’813 patent purports the date of the
`
`issuance of the patent to be October 28, 2014. Defendants further admit that the face of the
`
`’813 patent currently lists Senju as the assignee of the ’813 patent. Defendants admit that what
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`PAGE 8 OF 37
`
`

`
`purports to be a copy of the ’813 patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D. Defendants
`
`lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint and therefore deny them.
`
`19.
`
`B+L is the holder of New Drug Application (“NDA”) No. 203168 for Prolensa®,
`
`which the FDA approved on April 5, 2013. In conjunction with NDA No. 203168, the ’431 patent,
`
`the ’290, the ’131, and the ’813 patents are listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with
`
`Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (“the Orange Book”).
`
`ANSWER: Defendants admit that the Orange Book as of the date of this answer
`
`currently lists B+L as the purported registered holder of New Drug Application No. 203168.
`
`Defendants further admit that the Orange Book indicates that the FDA approved Prolensa® on
`
`April 5, 2013. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, including footnote 1 thereto, and
`
`therefore deny them.
`
`20.
`
`Bromfenac Ophthalmic Solution 0.07% is sold in the United States under the
`
`trademark Prolensa®.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`AS TO ALLEGED INNOPHARMA LICENSING, INC.’S INFRINGING ANDA
`SUBMISSION
`
`21.
`
`Upon information and belief, InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. filed with the FDA
`
`ANDA No. 206326, under Section 505(j) of the Act and 21 U.S.C. § 355(j).
`
`ANSWER: Defendants admit that InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. caused submission of an
`
`Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) under § 505(j)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and
`
`Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. §355(j)(2)(B)(ii)). Defendants further admit that the FDA assigned this
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`PAGE 9 OF 37
`
`

`
`application ANDA No. 206326. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint and therefore
`
`deny them.
`
`22.
`
`Upon information and belief, InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s ANDA No. 206326
`
`seeks FDA approval to sell in the United States InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s generic bromfenac
`
`ophthalmic solution, intended to be a generic version of Prolensa®.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants aver that InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. caused submission of an
`
`Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) under § 505(j)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and
`
`Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. §355(j)(2)(B)(ii)). Defendants further aver that the FDA assigned this
`
`application ANDA No. 206326. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint and therefore
`
`deny them.
`
`23.
`
`B+L received a letter from InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. dated September 19, 2014,
`
`purporting to be a Notice of Certification for ANDA No. 206326 (“InnoPharma Licensing Inc.’s
`
`notice letter”) under Section 505(j)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(B)(ii), and 21 §
`
`C.F.R. 314.95(c).
`
`ANSWER: Defendants aver that by letter dated September 19, 2014 InnoPharma
`
`Licensing, Inc. sent the requisite Notification pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(B) to Senju
`
`Pharmaceutical, Co., Ltd. and Bausch & Lomb and, in that Notification, InnoPharma Licensing,
`
`Inc. advised, among other things, that it had submitted an ANDA seeking FDA approval for
`
`bromfenac ophthalmic solution. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 23 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`PAGE 10 OF 37
`
`

`
`24.
`
`InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s notice letter alleges that InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.
`
`has submitted to the FDA ANDA No. 206326 seeking FDA approval to sell generic bromfenac
`
`ophthalmic solution, intended to be a generic version of Prolensa®.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants aver that InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. caused submission of an
`
`Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) under § 505(j)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and
`
`Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. §355(j)(2)(B)(ii)). Defendants further aver that the FDA assigned this
`
`application ANDA No. 206326. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 24 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`25.
`
`Upon information and belief, ANDA No. 206326 seeks approval of InnoPharma
`
`Licensing, Inc.’s generic bromfenac ophthalmic solution that is the same, or substantially the same, as
`
`Prolensa®.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants aver that InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. caused submission of an
`
`Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) under § 505(j)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and
`
`Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. §355(j)(2)(B)(ii)). Defendants further aver that the FDA assigned this
`
`application ANDA No. 206326. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 25 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`26.
`
`Upon information and belief, InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s actions relating to
`
`ANDA No. 206326 complained of herein were done with the cooperation, the participation, the
`
`assistance of, and at least in part for the benefit of InnoPharma Licensing, LLC, InnoPharma, Inc.,
`
`and InnoPharma LLC.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 11 OF 37
`
`

`
`COUNT I
`
`Infringement of the ’431 Patent under § 271(e)(2)
`
`27.
`
`Paragraphs 1-26 are incorporated herein as set forth above.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants repeat and incorporate by reference their responses contained in
`
`Paragraphs 1-26 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`28.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. has infringed at least one
`
`claim of the ’431 patent by submitting, or causing to be submitted to the FDA, ANDA No.
`
`206326 seeking approval for the commercial marketing of InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s generic
`
`bromfenac ophthalmic solution before the expiration date of the ’431 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
`
`29.
`
`Upon information and belief, InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s generic bromfenac
`
`ophthalmic solution will, if approved and marketed, infringe at least one claim of the ’431 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
`
`30.
`
`Upon information and belief, InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. will, through the
`
`manufacture, use import, offer for sale and/or sale of InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s generic
`
`bromfenac ophthalmic solution, directly infringe, contributorily infringe and/or induce
`
`infringement of at least one claim of the ’431 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
`
`COUNT II
`
`Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of the ’431 Patent
`
`31.
`
`Paragraphs 1-30 are incorporated herein as set forth above.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants repeat and incorporate by reference their responses contained in
`
`Paragraphs 1-30 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`PAGE 12 OF 37
`
`

`
`32.
`
`These claims arise under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
`
`2202.
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 32 of the Complaint contains conclusions to which no answer is
`
`required. To the extent an answer is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 32
`
`of the Complaint.
`
`33.
`
`There is an actual case or controversy such that the Court may entertain Plaintiffs’
`
`request for declaratory relief consistent with Article III of the United States Constitution, and this
`
`actual case or controversy requires a declaration of rights by this Court.
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 33 of the Complaint contains conclusions to which no answer is
`
`required. To the extent an answer is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 33
`
`of the Complaint.
`
`34.
`
`InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. has made, and will continue to make, substantial
`
`preparation in the United States to manufacture, use, offer to sell, sell and/or import InnoPharma
`
`Licensing Inc.’s generic bromfenac ophthalmic solution before the expiration date of the ’431
`
`patent, including InnoPharma Licensing Inc.’s filing of ANDA No. 206326.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants aver that InnoPharma Licensing Inc. caused submission of an
`
`Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) under § 505(j)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and
`
`Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. §355(j)(2)(B)(ii)). Defendants aver that the FDA assigned this
`
`application ANDA No. 206326. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 34 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`35.
`
`Upon information and belief, any commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale,
`
`sale, and/or importation of InnoPharma Licensing Inc.’s generic bromfenac ophthalmic solution
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`PAGE 13 OF 37
`
`

`
`will directly infringe, contributorily infringe and/or induce infringement of at least one claim of
`
`the ’431 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that future commercial
`
`manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or importation of InnoPharma Licensing Inc.’s generic
`
`bromfenac ophthalmic solution will constitute infringement of at least one claim of the ’431
`
`patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`COUNT III
`
`Infringement of the ’290 Patent under § 271(e)(2)
`
`37.
`
`Paragraphs 1-36 are incorporated herein as set forth above.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants repeat and incorporate by reference their responses contained in
`
`Paragraphs 1-36 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`38.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. has infringed at least one
`
`claim of the ’290 patent by submitting, or causing to be submitted to the FDA, ANDA No.
`
`206326 seeking approval for the commercial marketing of InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s generic
`
`bromfenac ophthalmic solution before the expiration date of the ’290 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
`
`39.
`
`Upon information and belief, InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s generic bromfenac
`
`ophthalmic solution will, if approved and marketed, infringe at least one claim of the ’290 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`PAGE 14 OF 37
`
`

`
`40.
`
`Upon information and belief, InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. will, through the
`
`manufacture, use import, offer for sale and/or sale of InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s generic
`
`bromfenac ophthalmic solution, directly infringe, contributorily infringe and/or induce
`
`infringement of at least one claim of the ’290 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of the ’290 Patent
`
`41.
`
`Paragraphs 1-40 are incorporated herein as set forth above.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants repeat and incorporate by reference their responses contained in
`
`Paragraphs 1-40 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`42.
`
`These claims arise under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
`
`2202.
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 42 of the Complaint contains conclusions to which no answer is
`
`required. To the extent an answer is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 42
`
`of the Complaint.
`
`43.
`
`There is an actual case or controversy such that the Court may entertain Plaintiffs’
`
`request for declaratory relief consistent with Article III of the United States Constitution, and this
`
`actual case or controversy requires a declaration of rights by this Court.
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 43 of the Complaint contains conclusions to which no answer is
`
`required. To the extent an answer is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 43
`
`of the Complaint.
`
`44.
`
`InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. has made, and will continue to make, substantial
`
`preparation in the United States to manufacture, use, offer to sell, sell and/or import InnoPharma
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`PAGE 15 OF 37
`
`

`
`Licensing Inc.’s generic bromfenac ophthalmic solution before the expiration date of the ’290
`
`patent, including InnoPharma Licensing Inc.’s filing of ANDA No. 206326.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants aver that InnoPharma Licensing Inc. caused submission of an
`
`Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) under § 505(j)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and
`
`Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. §355(j)(2)(B)(ii)). Defendants aver that the FDA assigned this
`
`application ANDA No. 206326. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 44 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`45.
`
`Upon information and belief, any commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale,
`
`sale, and/or importation of InnoPharma Licensing Inc.’s generic bromfenac ophthalmic solution
`
`will directly infringe, contributorily infringe and/or induce infringement of at least one claim of
`
`the ’290 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that future commercial
`
`manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or importation of InnoPharma Licensing Inc.’s generic
`
`bromfenac ophthalmic solution will constitute infringement of at least one claim of the ’290
`
`patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`COUNT V
`
`Infringement of the ’131 Patent under § 271(e)(2)
`
`47.
`
`Paragraphs 1-46 are incorporated herein as set forth above.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants repeat and incorporate by reference their responses contained in
`
`Paragraphs 1-46 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`PAGE 16 OF 37
`
`

`
`48.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. has infringed at least one
`
`claim of the ’131 patent by submitting, or causing to be submitted to the FDA, ANDA No.
`
`206326 seeking approval for the commercial marketing of InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s generic
`
`bromfenac ophthalmic solution before the expiration date of the ’131 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
`
`49.
`
`Upon information and belief, InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s generic bromfenac
`
`ophthalmic solution will, if approved and marketed, infringe at least one claim of the ’131 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
`
`50.
`
`Upon information and belief, InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. will, through the
`
`manufacture, use import, offer for sale and/or sale of InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s generic
`
`bromfenac ophthalmic solution, directly infringe, contributorily infringe and/or induce
`
`infringement of at least one claim of the ’131 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint.
`
`COUNT VI
`
`Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of the ’131 Patent
`
`51.
`
`Paragraphs 1-50 are incorporated herein as set forth above.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants repeat and incorporate by reference their responses contained in
`
`Paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`52.
`
`These claims arise under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
`
`2202.
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 52 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no
`
`answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, Defendants deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 52 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`PAGE 17 OF 37
`
`

`
`53.
`
`There is an actual case or controversy such that the Court may entertain Plaintiffs’
`
`request for declaratory relief consistent with Article III of the United States Constitution, and this
`
`actual case or controversy requires a declaration of rights by this Court.
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 53 of the Complaint contains conclusions to which no answer is
`
`required. To the extent an answer is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 53
`
`of the Complaint.
`
`54.
`
`InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. has made, and will continue to make, substantial
`
`preparation in the United States to manufacture, use, offer to sell, sell and/or import InnoPharma
`
`Licensing Inc.’s generic bromfenac ophthalmic solution before the expiration date of the ’131
`
`patent, including InnoPharma Licensing Inc.’s filing of ANDA No. 206326.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants aver that InnoPharma Licensing Inc. caused submission of an
`
`Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) under § 505(j)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug and
`
`Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. §355(j)(2)(B)(ii)). Defendants aver that the FDA assigned this
`
`application ANDA No. 206326. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 54 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`55.
`
`Upon information and belief, any commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale,
`
`sale, and/or importation of InnoPharma Licensing Inc.’s generic bromfenac ophthalmic solution
`
`will directly infringe, contributorily infringe and/or induce infringement of at least one claim of
`
`the ’131 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that future commercial
`
`manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or importation of InnoPharma Licensing Inc.’s generic
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`PAGE 18 OF 37
`
`

`
`bromfenac ophthalmic solution will constitute infringement of at least one claim of the ’131
`
`patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 56 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`COUNT VII
`
`Infringement of the ’813 Patent under § 271(e)(2)
`
`57.
`
`Paragraphs 1-56 are incorporated herein as set forth above.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants repeat and incorporate by reference their responses contained in
`
`Paragraphs 1-56 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`58.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), InnoPharma Licensing, Inc. has infringed at least one
`
`claim of the ’131 (sic) patent by submitting, or causing to be submitted to the FDA, ANDA No.
`
`206326 seeking approval for the commercial marketing of InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s generic
`
`bromfenac ophthalmic solution before the expiration date of the ’813 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint.
`
`59.
`
`Upon information and belief, InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.’s generic bromfenac
`
`ophthalmic solution will, if approved and marketed, infringe at least one claim of the ’813 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint.
`
`60.
`
`Upon information and belief, InnoPharma L

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