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

« Takeda Wins Attorneys' Fees in ANDA Case Against Alphapharm and Mylan Relating to ACTOS | Main | Introducing the Hatch-Waxman Tracker »

September 26, 2006

Pfizer Advises Supreme Court That Orange Book Listing/Justiciable Controversy Case is Moot

Via SCOTUSblog, Pfizer recently filed a supplemental brief in opposition to Apotex's petition for certiorari in Apotex v. Pfizer, suggesting that the case is moot.  In its cert petition, Apotex asked the Supreme Court decide whether the listing of patent information in the Orange Book creates a justiciable controversy sufficient to form the basis for a declaratory judgment action for noninfringement or invalidity.  Apotex does not agree that the case is moot, and therefore it has not withdrawn its petition.

According to Pfizer's brief, the case is moot for two reasons:  (1) Pfizer granted an unconditional covenant not to sue Apotex on the subject patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,248,699); and (2) Teva began marketing its generic Zoloft, thereby triggering the 180-day exclusivity period that Apotex sought to trigger with a hypothetical court judgment in its favor.  Pfizer's brief states that Apotex did not explain to Pfizer why there are still any issues for the Court to decide, though Apotex likely will provide that explanation soon, in a supplemental brief in support of its petition.

RELATED READING:

Comments

Post a comment

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