OBB Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to subscribe to the Orange Book Blog newsletter. If a new post is added during the day, you'll receive it by e-mail the next morning.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

AddThis Feed Button

Disclaimer

  • Orange Book Blog is published for informational purposes only; it contains no legal advice whatsoever. Publication of Orange Book Blog does not create an attorney-client relationship. Orange Book Blog is Aaron Barkoff's personal website and it is intended primarily for other attorneys. Orange Book Blog is not edited by McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP ("MBHB") or its clients. Therefore, no part of Orange Book Blog--whether information, commentary, or other--may be attributed to MBHB or its clients. Readers should be aware that MBHB represents many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and therefore Orange Book Blog may occasionally report on news that relates to MBHB clients. Orange Book Blog will always strive to be unbiased in its reporting. All information on Orange Book Blog should be double-checked for its accuracy and current applicability. -- © Aaron F. Barkoff 2006-08

« Sandoz's Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Delay FDA Approval of Generic Zocor is Denied | Main | FDA Boot Camp Conference Sept. 18-19 in Chicago »

July 16, 2006

District Court Finds Forest Labs' Lexapro Patent Valid and Enforceable, Halting Teva's Plans for Generic

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware released its opinion last Thursday in the Lexapro patent infringement case, finding in favor of Forest Labs.  Forest, the maker of Lexapro, sued IVAX, a division of Teva, for patent infringement based on IVAX's ANDA to market generic versions of Lexapro.  Forest took in over $2 billion on Lexapro sales in the U.S. last year.

Post-trial briefing in the case was completed not even two months ago.  The quick decision by Judge Farnan suggests the case was a slam-dunk for Forest.

Addressing defendants' lead argument, the court found the patent in suit, covering substantially pure (+)-citalopram, was not anticipated by a reference (Smith) that disclosed both the (+) and (-) enantiomers individually.  According to the court:

Smith only discloses the chemical structure of (R)-citalopram and does not disclose the chemical structure of (S)-citalopram, which corresponds to (+)-citalopram.  In addition, Smith does not disclose anything with regard to the purity of the (S)-enantiomer when it mentions that enantiomer, and the Court cannot presume that the disclosure of (R)-citalopram, individually and not in any mixture, necessarily discloses substantially pure (S)- or (+)-citalopram.  In these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that Smith discloses the entirety of the claimed invention.

Earlier last week, Forest Labs sued Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, another generic drug company who filed an ANDA for generic Lexapro.  That case was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan.

With last week's decision finding Forest's patent on Lexapro valid and enforceable, generic drug makers will likely have to wait until 2012 before they can market any generic versions of Lexapro.  Forest's patent expires in 2011, but its pediatric exclusivity period runs until March 13, 2012.

Teva will probably appeal the case to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

RELATED READING:

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.