AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al. v. Anchen Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. D.N.J. 2012 — On March 29, 2012, after facing a patent challenge by four generic drug manufacturers
in a Hatch-Waxman lawsuit, Fitzpatrick successfully defended AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals’ blockbuster antipsychotic drug Seroquel XR®. After a 12 day trial,
U.S. District Judge Joel A. Pisano in New Jersey ruled that generic makers Anchen,
Osmotica, Torrent and Mylan infringed AstraZeneca’s patent on sustained release
quetiapine, and rejected the defenses that the patent was invalid. The Court entered
a permanent injunction against all four generic manufacturers until May 28, 2017, when
the patent expires. U.S. sales of Seroquel XR® have totaled $1.7 billion from 2007
through March 2011.
In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation D. Del. 2010 — In litigation involving a reissue patent covering the AstraZeneca drug Crestor®,
Fitzpatrick, on behalf of its clients AstraZeneca UK, Ltd., IPR Pharmaceuticals Inc.
and Shionogi Kabushiki Kaisha, and as co-counsel with Finnegan Henderson and
Connolly Bove, successfully obtained a bench trial ruling that eight generic drug
companies infringed the patent, and that the patent remains valid and enforceable.
Following an eight-day bench trial, Judge Joseph Farnan of the District of Delaware
ruled that three Shionogi patent department personnel had not intended to deceive
the USPTO by failing to disclose information, that the defendants’ obviousness case
was hindsight-driven, and that the original patent was properly reissued.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca UK Ltd., v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd and Sandoz, Inc. Fed. Cir. 2009 — On September 25, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed
a summary judgment of no inequitable conduct in favor of our client, AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals. The patent at issue in the case covered AstraZeneca's quetiapine
fumarate atypical antipsychotic drug sold under the name Seroquel. The Court rejected
arguments that AstraZeneca had failed to disclose certain information, or made
misrepresentations, to the United States Patent and Trademark Office during
prosecution of the patent application. In particular, the Court concluded that the
evidence in the case "cannot support a finding that AstraZeneca misrepresented or
omitted material information" and that "no evidence of bad faith has been proffered."
AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical LP et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, et al. D.N.J. 2008 — Fitzpatrick, on behalf of its client AstraZeneca, won summary judgment of no inequitable
conduct against generic drug makers Teva and Sandoz in a Hatch-Waxman lawsuit
concerning AstraZeneca's antipsychotic drug Seroquel®. In an opinion dated July 1, 2008,
Judge Pisano of the District Court of New Jersey rejected Teva's and Sandoz's arguments
that AstraZeneca intentionally misled the United States Patent Office, and found that no
reasonable factfinder could conclude that AstraZeneca's alleged conduct before the Patent
Office was sufficiently material to sustain a finding of inequitable conduct. Judge Pisano also
found Teva's and Sandoz's allegations of deceptive intent to be speculative and without merit.
In conclusion, Judge Pisano found that no trial was necessary to determine the credibility of
AstraZeneca's inventors and patent attorneys, and that "the prosecution record speaks for itself."