throbber
MonoSol Rx”
`PharmFilm Technology
`
`November 21, 2016
`
`Michael J. Harrington
`Sr. Vice President and General Counsel
`
`Lilly Corporate Center
`
`lndianapolis, Indiana 46285 USA
`
`Dear Mr. Harrington,
`
`It has been brought to our attention that Eli Lilly and Company and ICOS Corporation ("Lilly")
`
`have filed multiple Complaints for patent infringement against multiple Abbreviated New Drug
`
`Application ("ANDA") filers. As you are aware, these Complaints are for infringement of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,943,166 (the "'166 patent”).
`
`We have also been informed that Lilly filed its first Complaint on September 2, 2016. This is one
`
`day after the USPTO denied IntelGenx’s request for an Inter Partes Review ("IPR") of the ‘166
`
`patent.
`
`Finally we note IntelGenx’s press release on November 21, 2016 announcing a binding term
`
`sheet between IntelGenx and Lilly for the licensing of the ‘166 patent to lntelGenx.
`
`MonoSol Rx is developing a branded oral soluble film version of tadalafil. This branded product
`
`will be detailed by pharmaceutical sales representatives with a focus on urologists. We believe
`
`this product offers important choice and differentiation to sufferers. Specifically, our product
`
`can be taken with or without water, is packaged on an individual basis for discreteness and
`
`portability, and may be easier to swallow for patients suffering from dysphagia.
`
`MonoSol Rx believes the ‘166 patent can be invalidated. We have reviewed the USPTO’s
`
`response to lntelGenx and believe a stronger request for Opening an IPR can be provided to the
`
`USPTO. To this end, we are attaching a draft IPR that we plan on filing with the USPTO on
`
`December 5th. We believe this IPR will lead to the invalidation of ‘166 and we are prepared to
`
`ICOS Exhibit 2004
`MonoSol v. ICOS
`IPR2017-00412
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`

`

`vigorously pursue institution of an IPR focused on ‘166. Using analogs of a typical IPR process,
`
`we would expect the USPTO to invalidate the '166 patent in early 2018.
`
`Given that our product will be non-AB rated and that we are taking a branded approach to the
`
`marketplace, we believe there is a more amenable way for MonoSol Rx to access the market.
`
`We would prefer to license the ‘166 patent from Lilly rather than pursue invalidation via the
`USPTO.
`
`MonoSol Rx is prepared to offer Lilly reasonable business terms in order to achieve a mutually
`
`agreeable position. We politely request a response from you indicating your level of interest in
`
`discussing an amenable solution.
`
`We appreciate your consideration of our proposal and look forward to hearing from you.
`
`
`
`Keith Kendall
`
`Chief Executive Officer
`
`kkendallQmonosolrx.com
`
`(908) 941—1906
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`

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