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

« FDA Refuses to Approve Any ANDAs for Generic Norvasc Besides Mylan's--For Now | Main | Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity of AstraZeneca Prilosec Process Patent »

April 19, 2007

Abbott Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Sandoz in Biaxin XL Case

Abbott Labs v. Sandoz, No. 05-5373 (N.D. Ill. 2007)

This past Monday, Judge David H. Coar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Abbott's motion for a preliminary injunction to stop Sandoz from selling a generic version of Biaxin XL (clarithromycin extended release tablets).  Abbott earns about $300 million each year in the U.S. from sales of Biaxin XL, an antibiotic used primarily for the treatment of bacterial infections of the skin and upper respiratory system.

The preliminary injunction against Sandoz is a reversal of fortune for Abbott, considering that last December Judge Coar denied Abbott's motion for a temporary restraining order.  Now, in a 61-page opinion, Judge Coar explained that "after having the benefit of a full hearing, this Court is able to better decide the merits of enjoining Sandoz from further selling or marketing its extended release formulation of clarithromycin."

Abbott alleged that Sandoz's generic version of Biaxin XL infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,010,718 and 6,551,616, which claim extended release formulations of clarithromycin.  Judge Coar found that Abbott demonstrated "a substantial likelihood of proving Sandoz's product infringes upon claims 1 and 4 of the '718 patent."  Moreover, he found that Sandoz's obviousness and inequitable conduct defenses lack substantial merit.

With regard to inequitable conduct, Judge Coar wrote that although Sandoz showed a substantial likelihood of proving materiality and intent to deceive with respect to the '616 patent, Abbott abandoned the '616 patent claim in question on its own volition and "it seems wholly inequitable to hold a patent invalid for fraudulent conduct in the prosecution of a claim that was withdrawn before actual prosecution had even begun."  Judge Coar further observed that "[r]edemption is one of the core principles of the American ethos."

Besides Sandoz, Abbott is fending off generic competition to Biaxin XL from Andrx, Ranbaxy, Roxane, and Teva.  In January, the Federal Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction against Andrx.  Last August, Abbott and Teva settled their litigation, although on Tuesday Teva filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York to enforce the settlement.

Thanks very much to a helpful reader for bringing this case to my attention!

Comments

Post a comment

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