- 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
-
July 16, 2024David Martinez Named To 2024 Leaders of Influence: Litigators & Trial Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal
-
July 16, 2024Robins Kaplan Ranked Among Best Law Firms for Training and Professional Development
-
July 15, 2024IAM Patent 1000 Recommends Robins Kaplan, Nine Partners for Patent Litigation
-
July 18, 2024Trial Skills: Examination of Expert Witnesses - Direct and Cross
-
August 6, 2024Identifying Opportunities: Affirmative Recovery Strategies
-
October 21, 2024How Much Did We Invest in AI?
-
Second QuarterGENERICally Speaking: A Hatch-Waxman Litigation Bulletin
-
July 12, 2024Litigation Perspective: Strategies for Licensing Software that Leverages Artificial Intelligence
-
June/July 2024A Dive Into Intellectual Property Liability For E-Commerce Platforms
-
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.
Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Tolmar, Inc.
Invega Sustenna® (paliperidone palmitate)
April 1, 2024
Case Name: Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Tolmar, Inc., Civ. No. 21-1784-WCB, 2024 WL 2972832 (D. Del. June 13, 2024) (Bryson, J.)
Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Invega Sustenna® (paliperidone palmitate); U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906 (“the ’906 patent”)
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Janssen sued Tolmar for patent infringement and after a four-day bench trial, the court found all the asserted claims of the ’906 patent not obvious in view of the referenced prior art. Three weeks later, the Federal Circuit issued an appellate decision, the Teva decision, vacating another district court’s non-obviousness determination of the same patent. Tolmar argued that the Federal Circuit’s determination in the Teva appeal reveals errors in this court’s reasoning that require this court to amend its judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Tolmar also argued that the court erred by enjoining all five dosage amounts of Tolmar’s ANDA product in its final judgment, and that the court should amend its judgment to affect only the highest of the five dosage amounts. The court denied both grounds of Tolmar’s motion for reconsideration.
Why Janssen Prevailed: Tolmar raised three arguments in its motion concerning the court’s non-obviousness finding.
First, the court improperly determined that a skilled artisan would have had little reason to modify the NCT 548 prior art reference, and that this finding is contrary to the Federal Circuit’s Teva decision. “The Federal Circuit held that the absence of safety and efficacy data in a reference cannot justify simply discarding that prior art. Instead, the Federal Circuit instructed that the district court in that case should have looked to what the ’548 protocol would fairly suggest to a POSA. That is precisely what this court did.” While the court acknowledged that there could be several reasons to modify NCT 548 to achieve the desired invention, it was Tolmar’s burden to show there was a reason to do so and it failed to meet that burden.
Second, the court erred in finding that a skilled artisan would not have arrived at the claimed dosing regimen based on NCT 548 and the overall prior art on dosing. The court noted that Janssen arrived at the claimed dosing regimen using proprietary knowledge and data, knowledge and data that a skilled artisan would not have had. That is not the same thing as suggesting that Tolmar was foreclosed from attempting to show that such a person could have arrived at the claimed dosing regimen without such knowledge. Tolmar just failed to do so at trial.
Third, the court misapprehending the law relating to unexpected results and by failing to consider the impact of Janssen’s blocking patents on commercial success. To begin with, “the analysis of the secondary considerations was not critical to the court’s ultimate conclusion regarding obviousness.” After considering Tolmar’s unexpected results argument, the court concluded that there was no basis in the prior art to expect the dramatic difference in results between NCT 548’s fixed-dose, gluteal regimen and the claimed dosing regimens in terms of achieving rapid onset of the therapeutic effects of the drug without creating proportionally higher increases in peak concentration in the patient’s body. The Federal Circuit in Teva held that the correct inquiry regarding unexpected results was to compare the expectations based on information available to a skilled artisan with the claimed regimens’ results. “The Federal Circuit’s decision in Teva is not at odds with this court’s ruling on that issue; in fact, the Federal Circuit expressly agreed that the safe harbor provision is a relevant factor to be considered in determining the role of blocking patents in ANDA cases.”
Finally, Tolmar’s efforts to modify the final judgment were also unpersuasive. The parties stipulated that if any of claims 1–7, claim 15, and claims 17–21 of the ’906 patent were not found to be invalid, Tolmar would agree to entry of a judgment of infringement and order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A) with respect to such claim. “Although it does not say so expressly, the stipulation unambiguously encompasses all five dosage sizes in Tolmar’s ANDA within the scope of what the judgment of infringement would cover.” Thus, Tolmar’s argument for reconsideration is contrary to the stipulation. The language in the stipulation governing Janssen’s concession of non-infringement applies to the exact same subject matter as Tolmar’s concession of infringement.
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.