- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
June 17, 2024Emily Tremblay Named IP Rising Star by Euromoney in 2024 Women in Business Law Awards
-
June 17, 2024Three Robins Kaplan Partners Named BTI Client Service All-Stars
-
June 13, 2024Brendan Johnson Named South Dakota Trial Lawyer of The Year
-
June 27, 2024Sex Abuse Litigation
-
June 10-11, 20242024 Probate and Trust Law Section Conference
-
June 11, 2024FBA 2024 Federal Practice Seminar
-
June 2024Robins Kaplan Secures Landmark $7.75 Million Verdict in Aerosol Duster Misuse Case
-
June 2024To Seize or Not to Seize: Campus Protests and Police Uses of Force
-
June 2024Communicating Your Estate Plan: A Helpful Tool, Not a Fix-All
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
Novartis Pharms Corp. v. Crystal Pharm. (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
Entresto® (sacubitril/valsartan)
November 14, 2022
![GENERICally Speaking](/-/media/images/newsletters/generically-speaking-social-graphics/generic_390x160.png?la=en&h=160&w=390&la=en&hash=7C4F410F9639FA5CC4261D8C8A36AB07)
Case Name: Novartis Pharms Corp. v. Crystal Pharm. (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., No. 20-md-2930-RGA, 2022 WL 16921985 (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2022) (Andrews, J.)
Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Entresto® (sacubitril/valsartan); U.S. Patents Nos 9,517,226 (“the ’226 patent”), 9,937,143 (“the ’143 patent”), and 11,135,192 (“the ’192 patent”)
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Defendant submitted an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Entresto. Defendant’s ANDA originally included Paragraph IV certifications to the patents-in-suit, but in May 2022, Defendant informed Plaintiff that it had converted its Paragraph IV certifications to a Section viii carve-out statement. The Section viii statement confirms that Defendant’s ANDA product will not infringe any of the methods of use claimed in the ’226, ’143, and ’192 patents. In response, Plaintiff moved to dismiss without prejudice its infringement claims in the ANDA suits as well as Defendant’s counterclaims. The court granted Plaintiff’s motion.
Why Novartis Prevailed: Plaintiff argued that an Article III case and controversy no longer existed between the parties because Defendant’s Section viii statement meant that it was no longer seeking FDA approval for any method recited in the patents-in-suit. As a result, Plaintiff argued that dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) was warranted because: (i) it would not result in substantial prejudice to Defendant; and (ii) Defendant’s counterclaims could not remain pending for independent adjudication.
The court found that dismissal would not prejudice Defendant because the ANDA litigation was at a very early stage, and Plaintiff was diligent in moving to dismiss. Defendant argued that it would be prejudiced by the specter of Plaintiff reasserting the patents-in-suit, but the court found that whether Defendant may (or may not) face a lawsuit in the future does not give rise to prejudice.
Further, the court found that Defendant’s counterclaims could not remain pending for independent adjudication because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the ANDA applicant submitted a Section viii statement, it no longer sought FDA approval for uses covered by the patents-in-suit. In other words, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Defendant’s counterclaims because Plaintiff’s infringement claims were no longer of any “actual controversy.”
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.