I hope some of you saw the musical video Andrew posted yesterday before it was taken down in a copyright strike by the Prince Estate due to his eerily pitch perfect parody. The costumes alone were worth the price of admission.
Hopefully tomorrow's video -- Injunction Junction -- fairs better.
Mallinkrodt Pharms. Ireland Ltd. v. Airgas Therapeutics LLC, C.A. No. 22-1648-RGA (D. Del. Feb 12, 2025). presented an interesting twist on the tried and true preliminary injunction formula.
The likelihood of success analysis was pretty standard (although it touched on one of my favorite issues -- drug interaction). Ditto for irreparable harm, with the Court finding allegations of lost sales and price erosion "unconvincing."
Normally, this would be the end of the analysis, but here the plaintiff argues that equitable estoppel should also factor into the analysis and weigh in favor of granting the injunction.
Apparently, the defendants had filed the ANDA before the patents-in-suit issued. Accordingly, there was no 30-month stay preventing their approval and launch. Plaintiff didn't know this, and filed the normal ANDA form complete with a date for the 30-month stay. For various reasons, the defendant avoided producing their ANDA for quite a while, and did not otherwise notify the plaintiff that no stay applied. Once Plaintiff realized the issue, they moved for the PI and argued that this conduct should support an injunction.
Denying the motion for injunction, Judge Andrews held that equitable estoppel was not a relevant factor in the injunction analysis:
Equitable estoppel is not a factor considered when deciding an injunction motion. Mallinckrodt does not offer it as a defense, which is how equitable estoppel is used in the cases it cites. I do not think equitable estoppel principles support issuing an injunction in this case.
Id. at 20 (internal citations omitted)
The chorus writes itself.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
