Obviously, damages issues like a hypothetical negotiation date don't come up very often in an ANDA case. Mallinckrodt PLC v. Airgast Therapeutics LLC, C.A. No. 22-1648-RGA, D.I. 461 (D. Del. Aug. 20, 2025), was a little different, however. In that case, the Defendant Airgas had actually filed its ANDA12 years before the case was filed, and before any of the asserted patents were added to the Orange Book. Accordingly, there was no 30-month stay.
By the time summary judgment came around, Airgas had launched its product and damages were thus in play. The parties disputed whether …
I know that I promised a hard-hitting post on infringement stats in ANDA cases, and I was really going to post the update this time—really! But then the very first case I read had a neat issue that deserved a post on its own. We can only hope I remember to get to it next week.
In the meantime, today I have the rare case where the Court actually granted an adverse inference as a discovery sanction.
Central to infringement in Novartis Pharms. Corp v. MSN Pharms Inc., C.A. No. 22-1395-RGA, D.I. 523 (D. Del. July 11, 2025), was a factual issue that is only of interest to analytical chemistry …
Many years ago now, when I was still in the full flagrant flower of youth (38), I wrote a post discussing the relative rates at which various drug patents—compound, method of treatment, and formulation—were found invalid in Delaware.
Not analyzed at the time (because who has the time?) was the question of how often these various types of drug patents are found to be infringed in ANDA cases. I'll have a fuller post on this later in the week, but my guess is that it goes compound > method of treatment > formulation. If it turns out I am wrong, you will never be able to prove it because I will edit this post immediately.
AI-Generated, displayed with permission
In any case, method of treatment patents often follow trends with certain themes going into and out of vogue, so I suspect today's opinion from Chief Judge Connolly in Novo Nordisk, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., C.A. No. 23-101-CFC (D. Del July 22, 2025), will be of general interest to our audience.
The patent there—for blockbuster drug Wegovy—required that the drug be administered "without another therapeutic agent," which the Court construed to mean "administered without another therapeutic agent as part of the method for reducing body weight, or for treating the conditions of diabetes or hypertension."
Mylan argued that their ANDA label could not induce infringement because, although it cautioned against using the drug with other GLP-1 inhibitors, it was agnostic as to any other weight loss drugs, merely saying that "[t]he safety and efficacy of coadministration with other products for weight loss have not been established."
Plaintiff argued that the this was sufficient to establish inducement because "the proposed label does not require patients to receive other treatment beyond a reduced-calorie diet and physical activity, 'physicians will inevitably prescribe Mylan's ANDA Product without another therapeutic agent.'"
Anyone who's ever heard a judge speak, be it at the Bench and Bar conference, a luncheon, or in the drive-thru of your local Arbys, will have heard them say that a shorter brief is often better.
I only need one horsey sauce, any more is just gilding the lilyMahavir Shah, Unsplash
Law being what it is, however, this advice isn't often taken. Looking at the last 7 motions to dismiss filed in the district (look, I got bored)—with the usual 20-page limit—the average length was about 18 pages.
And so, on this slow news day, I bring you what may be the shortest successful motion I have ever seen, so that we may all be inspired to similar brevity:
Dear Judge Andrews:
We write on behalf of MSN to respectfully request an emergency teleconference and a temporary restraining order restraining Novartis from forwarding today's final judgment to the FDA. MSN' s motion to delist the '659 patent is scheduled for oral argument on April 29, 2025, and if the Court grants the motion, then Novartis' loses its pediatric exclusivity and there would be no basis to re-set MSN's ANDA's FDA approval date. If Novartis were to forward the order to the FDA, FDA re -sets MSN's ANDA's approval date, and MSN is successful on its motion, then MSN would be irreparably harmed because it would not be able to launch its ANDA product even though Novartis would lose its pediatric exclusivity. In that regard, there is no harm to Novartis by granting MSN's requested TRO because the final judgment enjoins MSN from launching its product.
We respectfully request interim relief at the Court's earliest convenience.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., C.A. No. 19-2053-RGA. D.I. 518 (D. Del. Apr. 1, 2025).
That little motion—which was actually emailed to chambers—won the defendant a short-lived TRO that very day:
MSN's request for temporary emergency relief is granted. Novartis and its agents are ORDERED to maintain the status quo. That is, Novartis is directed not to provide the final judgment entered today to the FDA. I do not see any harm to Novartis from brief delay, because MSN cannot launch. But Novartis can certainly respond to MSN's letter, and I will reconsider the issue after receiving any response from Novartis.
You are all of course familiar with the classic tale of chicken little. You may be less familiar with the plot of if the ill-fated Disney move of the same name. They both start the same, chicken sleeping under a tree has something fall on him, tells everyone the sky is falling and starts a panic.
Here the stories diverge. In the folktale, chicken little and his panicked friends meet a while fox, who tricks them into taking shelter in his cave, and then eats them. You can see the lesson.
In the film, chicken little is scorned, but later redeems himself by helping the local baseball team win the pennant (?). Afterwards, he is again hit by a piece of the sky, which turns out to be high tech camouflage used to hide alien spaceships in low orbit. The ships descend upon the hapless town, and the whole thing turns out to be a big misunderstanding. The lesson is somewhat less clear. This film made 300 million dollars.
Those of you who read Law360 (who somehow scooped me on this, but whose article does not recount the plot of a 20-year-old children's movie in unnecessary detail) will have guessed that this is all leading up to Judge Andrews' Oral Order yesterday in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., C.A. No. 19-2053-RGA. D.I. 512 (D. Del. Apr. 2, 2025):
Yesterday, MSN said the sky was falling and it needed emergency relief. I granted it. Today, MSN has filed an emergency motion requesting additional relief for essentially the same falling sky. I decline to enter any additional relief at this time or to consider the motion on an emergency basis.
For those wondering about the context here, the Federal Circuit just recently issued its mandate in the case ruling that the asserted patent was valid and infringed. Judge Andrews then promptly entered a final judgment, which included an order setting the effective date for approval of MSN's ANDA until after the end of Novartis' pediatric exclusivity period.
It's unclear from the docket exactly what happened next, but it appears that MSN emailed chambers ...
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.
Honestly the photo doesn't do it justiceAI-Generated, displayed with permission
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 …
Defendants are always on the lookout for ways resolve patent cases (and other cases) early. One potential avenue is an FRCP 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings—but it only works in uncommon circumstance that the pleadings themselves show a lack of infringement or validity.
It's an uncommon circumstance—but not unheard of. Last week, the Court granted an FRCP 12(c) motion of no contributory infringement in Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma. Inc. v. Apotex Inc., C.A. No. 23-685-CFC (D. Del.), after a plaintiff's own complaint showed a lack of infringement.
Boehringer is an ANDA action. The patent claims a drug used to treat a disease in patients who—critically—are ineligible to receive a second drug. The label …
One of the hallmarks of the Hatch-Waxman Act is the "offer of confidential access," wherein the generic manufacturer must offer the NDA holder, you guessed it, confidential access to the ANDA before the deadline to file suit.
AI-Generated, displayed with permission
One of the lesser explored implications of the OCA is the effect of a patentee declining the offer and bringing suit without reviewing the actual ANDA. In particular, how does that decision effect the attorney's fees inquiry if the NDA holder is ultimately unsuccessful at trial?
This was the question Judge Goldberg addressed on Friday in Silvergate Pharms., Inc. v. Bionpharma Inc., C.A. No. 18-1962-MSG (D. Del. Oct. 4, 2024) (Mem. Op.). Bionpharma had prevailed …
In a modern patent case—with dozens of claims and zillions of similar accused products—there are innumerable possible permutations of infringement and invalidity outcomes.
This can make it pretty difficult to craft a stipulation on undisputed issues.
The image generator I was using is now behind a paywall so I'm trying out new ones. Expect some more cursed illustrations like this for the next little whileAI-Generated, displayed with permission
This was the hard lesson in Janssen Pharms, Inc. v. Tolmar, Inc., C.A. No. 21-1784-WCB, D.I. 198 (D. Del. June 13, 2024). In that ANDA case, the defendant had stipulated that "if any of claims 1–7, claim 15, and claims 17–21 (as dependent from claims 1 and 4) of the ’906 patent are not found to be invalid in this Action, Tolmar will 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.” Id. at 7 (quoting D.I. 86).
The whole thing went to trial and all of those claims were found not to be invalid. However, each of the above claims required a specific dosage strength, while Tolmar's ANDA covered several other doses in addition to the claimed ones. So, after trial they amended their ANDA to remove the infringing dosage and subsequently moved to amend the judgment to all the FDA to approve the amended ANDA for the (allegedly) non-infringing dosages.
Judge Bryson denied the motion however, holding that ...
Administrative law is famously labyrinthine. And not the fun kind of labyrinth with awesome bull-headed dudes.
"You totally rule Asterion" "I totally already know that"AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Today's case deals with an FDA practice -- not even a regulation! -- that had an outsized effect on an ANDA.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH, C.A. No. 23-556-RGA (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2024) (R&R) was a declaratory judgment action spawned from an earlier ANDA dispute. In that earlier case, Mylan had filed given a Paragraph IV certification as to several of Bayer's orange book patents for Xarelto, and a Paragraph III certification as to another.
(Eds. Note - if you're wondering what a paragraph IV certification is, you should probably just stop here, this one gets pretty weedsy and the jokes are mostly over).
When all was said and done in that earlier case, one of the patents was invalid, and another Bayer never sued on at all, apparently conceding the product did not infringe. Mylan thus should have been able to launch as soon as the paragraph III patent expired.
This blog is for general informational purposes. It is not an offer to perform legal services, and should not be considered a substitute for legal advice. Nothing in this blog should be construed as forming an attorney-client relationship. If you have legal questions, please consult counsel in your jurisdiction.
