Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Deston Therapeutics LLC v. Trigen Labs. Inc., C.A. No. 09-809-JBS-KW (D. Del. July 12, 2010) (Simandle, J.).

Deston Therapeutics LLC v. Trigen Labs. Inc., C.A. No. 09-809-JBS-KW (D. Del. July 12, 2010) (Simandle, J.).

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,219 |Likes:
Published by Alfred Reyes

More info:

Published by: Alfred Reyes on Jul 14, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/14/2010

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWAREDESTON THERAPEUTICS LLC andUNIGEN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,Plaintiffs,v.TRIGEN LABORATORIES INC. andIRISYS INC.,Defendants.HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLECivil No. 09-809 (JBS/KW)
OPINION
APPEARANCES:Rodger Dallery Smith, II, Esq.Katharyn A. Grant, Esq.Saul H. Perloff, Esq.MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL1201 North Market StreetP.O. Box 1347Wilmington, DE 19899Counsel for Plaintiffs Deston Therapeutics LLC and UnigenPharmaceuticals Inc.John C. Phillips, Jr., Esq.Brian E. Farnan, Esq.Steven M. War, Esq.PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN & SPENCE, P.A.1200 North Broom StreetWilmington, DE 19806Counsel for Defendants Trigen Laboratories Inc. and IrisysInc.
SIMANDLE
, District Judge:
1
This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismisssubmitted by Defendants Trigen Laboratories Inc. and Irisys Inc.The undersigned, a United States District Judge for the
1
District of New Jersey, is sitting by designation in the UnitedStates District Court for the District of Delaware due to avacant judgeship.
 
[Docket Item 11]. Defendants ask the Court to dismiss this
2
patent infringement action brought by Plaintiffs DestonTherapeutics LLC and Unigen Pharmaceuticals Inc., becausePlaintiffs’ patent claims cannot be construed to includeDefendants’ product. Plaintiffs’ remaining causes of action,Defendants argue, are insufficiently pled. As will be explainedat greater length below, the Court finds that patent claimconstruction would be premature and that Plaintiffs haveadequately alleged violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Actand the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as commonlaw unfair competition. The Court will consequently denyDefendants’ motion to dismiss.
I.FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A.Allegations in the Complaint
The present action turns on Defendants’ use (or failure touse) a chemical composition called “u-polycosanol 410" in theirpurportedly generic version of Plaintiffs’ ear drops. Whilepolycosanol (also know as “policosanol”) is a general term for atype of alcohol extracted from waxes, Plaintiffs allege that u-polycosanol 410 is a unique polycosanol composition subject totwo patents (United States Patent No. 7,034,060 and No.6,683,116) owned by Plaintiff Unigen. (Compl. ¶¶ 9-13.) The “u”Also pending is a joint motion for extension of time for
2
Plaintiffs to oppose Defendants’ motion [Docket Item 15]. TheCourt will grant the parties’ request, nunc pro tunc.2
 
is a reference to Unigen and the “410" refers to the product’smolecular weight. (Id. at 4 n.2.) The u-polycosanol patentsinclude both “a novel policosanol composition and a method ofmaking the composition from wax secreted by the insect Ericeruspela, a soft scale insect indigenous to southern China.” (Id. ¶11.) Plaintiff Deston markets Auralgan, a prescription ear dropsolution, for which it holds an exclusive license to use Unigen’su-polycosanol 410. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 18-19.)In July 2009, Defendants began marketing and manufacturingTreagan, an ear drop solution whose packet insert indicates thatit contains “u-polycosanol 410 (synthetic).” (Id. ¶¶ 22-23.)Plaintiffs allege that Defendants list u-polycosanol 410 onTreagan’s label as a way of insuring that the product will beused by drug wholesalers, distributors, and pharmacies, as ageneric equivalent of Auralgan. (Id. ¶¶ 24-29.) To beconsidered a generic equivalent, a drug must be bothpharmaceutically equivalent (the same active ingredients,strength, and dosage form) and bio-equivalent (delivers theactive ingredients to the site of action in the body at the samerate and in the same amount). (Id. 25.) Without both types ofequivalence, pharmacists will not substitute a generic drug for abrand-name drug prescribed by a doctor. (Id. 26.) Drugwholesalers, distributors, pharmacies and pharmacists rely ondrug information databases, including First DataBank, to3

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->