January 24, 2021

Volume XI, Number 24

Advertisement

January 22, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Celgene v. Sun Pharma Global: Satisfying Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under § 271(e)(2)

On April 6, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Celgene Corp. v. Sun Pharma Global FZE, No. 19-cv-10099, denied Sun’s motion to dismiss Celgene’s claims that Sun’s generic Revlimid® (lenalidomide) Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) product infringes three patents not listed in the Orange Book for Revlimid® and for which Sun did not make any Paragraph IV certifications. Sun alleged that under those facts, Celgene’s claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The court held that neither the lack of Paragraph IV certification nor the asserted patents’ absence from the branded drug’s Orange Book entry deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2).

Celgene is the maker of the cancer treatment drug, Revlimid®. On May 30, 2018, Sun provided Celgene with Paragraph IV certification letters asserting that its generic lenalidomide drug would not infringe three patents listed in the Orange Book for Revlimid®, or that those three patents are invalid. Sun sued Celgene for infringement of those three patents in an earlier action on July 13, 2018. On April 16, 2019, in a new action, Celgene sued Sun under the Hatch-Waxman Act, asserting that Celgene’s lenalidomide ANDA product infringes three additional patents, none of which were listed in the Orange Book entry for Revlimid® and none of which were the subject of Sun’s Paragraph IV notifications.

Sun moved to dismiss the second infringement suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that a complaint for patent infringement pursuant to section 271(e)(2) must allege both (1) that the asserted patents are listed in the Orange Book for the plaintiff’s branded drug and (2) that the defendants have submitted Paragraph IV certifications to all asserted patents.

The court, however, sided with Celgene, holding that in order to satisfy subject matter jurisdiction, a complaint under section 271(e)(2) need only allege that the defendant infringed the asserted patent(s) by filing its ANDA application. The court found support in the absence of Sun’s proposed jurisdictional requirements in the plain text of section 271(e)(2). It further observed that, while a prior District of New Jersey decision seemed to endorse Sun’s argument, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit subsequently clarified (and subsequent District of New Jersey cases echoed) that a Hatch-Waxman plaintiff need not allege defendants filed a Paragraph IV certification for each asserted patent. See, e.g.Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharms. Int’l Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Advertisement
©1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 104
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Adam Samansky IP Attorney Mintz Law Firm
Member

Adam is an experienced IP litigator who primarily serves pharmaceutical, medical, high tech, and defense industry clients. He handles patent, trademark, and trade secret matters for innovators and investors. Adam has a strong record of success in multiparty, highly contested Hatch-Waxman litigation, in addition to other litigations involving advanced biochemistry, polymers, optics, manufacturing processes, and electronics. He has tried cases before multiple US district courts, briefed and argued cases before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and briefed bet-the-company...

617-348-1819
Peter J. Cuomo, Mintz Levin, Patent Litigation Lawyer, Expert Discovery Attorney,Patent Litigation IPRs & Other Post-Grant Proceedings Federal Circuit Appeals Hatch-Waxman ,ANDA Litigation Federal District Court
Of Counsel

Peter’s practice involves intellectual property enforcement and defense, and client counseling on issues related to IP rights. Peter's primary focus is in patent litigation where he has experience in every phase from pre-suit investigations through appeal, including, initial evaluation and case initiation, fact and expert discovery, pre-and post-trial motion practice, and trials and appeals. In addition to suits centered on the assertion and defense of infringement claims, Peter has experience with the successful resolution of multiple inventorship disputes and related misappropriation...

617-348-1854
Joseph Rutowski IP Attorney Mintz
Associate

Joseph’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and counseling on issues related to intellectual property rights. Joseph’s primary focus is in patent litigation, including the intricacies of Hatch-Waxman pharmaceutical litigation. He has extensive experience in every stage of litigation, from pre-suit investigations through appeal – including case initiation, fact and expert discovery, motion practice, and successful preparation for and participation in trials involving patent infringement allegations.

Joseph has represented...

617.348.1873
Advertisement
Advertisement