Author

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

Calendar

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

« News From PhRMA Annual Meeting | Main | Federal Circuit Invalidates Pfizer's Norvasc Patent; Mylan's Generic Expected to Launch Soon »

March 20, 2007

Pfizer Defeats Teva in Celebrex Case

Pfizer et al. v. Teva Pharms. USA, No. 04-754 (D. N.J. 2007)

In a 201-page opinion released today, Judge John C. Lifland of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey found all three of Pfizer's patents on Celebrex (celecoxib) valid, enforceable, and infringed by Teva, who had sought to market a generic version of Celebrex before the patents expire in 2015.  Celebrex is Pfizer's blockbuster treatment for arthritis.

The patents in suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,466,823, 5,563,165, and 5,760,068.  They cover celecoxib (the active ingredient in Celebrex), a broad genus of compounds that includes celecoxib, pharmaceutical compositions including the compounds, and methods of using the compounds.  Teva challenged the validity of the patents on grounds of obviousness, best mode, and obviousness-type double patenting, and the enforceability of the patents on grounds of inequitable conduct.  Teva will likely appeal the decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

Incidentally, MBHB attorney Stephen H. Docter is a co-inventor on the '068 patent.

RELATED READING:

Posted by Aaron Barkoff in Paragraph IV Litigation |

Comments

Post a comment

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