Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd et al. v. Zydus Worldwide DMCC et al.

• Represented Actelion, a Johnson & Johnson company, and Nippon Shinyaku in a patent infringement litigation against Zydus related to Uptravi®, an innovative drug for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension to delay disease progression and reduce the risk of hospitalization. Before litigating into expert discovery, Zydus admitted infringement and patent validity in consent judgments.

Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) et al.

• Represented Actelion, a Johnson & Johnson company, in a patent infringement litigation related to Opsumit®, an innovative drug for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension to reduce the risks of disease progression and hospitalization. The generic manufacturer defendants admitted infringement and patent validity in consent judgments.

Adamas Pharma LLC v. Sandoz, Inc.

• Represented Adamas in a patent infringement litigation related to Gocovri®, an innovative drug for the treatment of dyskinesia in patients with Parkinson’s disease receiving levodopa-based therapy, with or without concomitant dopaminergic medications. After litigating into claim construction briefing, Adamas obtained a favorable settlement.

Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Lupin Ltd. et al.

• Represented Eisai and Arena in a patent infringement litigation related to Belviq®, an innovative drug for the treatment of weight loss. The case settled with the generic manufacturer defendants stipulating to patent infringement.

Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co. Ltd. et al. v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. et al.

• Represented Sumitomo Dainippon and Sunovion in a patent infringement litigation in the district court and the Federal Circuit related to Latuda®, a blockbuster drug for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar depression. After the district court’s claim construction decision that was favorable to Sumitomo Dainippon and Sunovion, the generic manufacturer defendants admitted infringement and patent validity in consent judgments.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction decision and consent judgments.

Sanofi-Aventis US LLC et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

• Represented Eli Lilly in a patent litigation involving Eli Lilly’s request to market its insulin glargine drug product Basaglar®. The case settled on the eve of trial with the press reporting Eli Lilly’s ability to launch Basaglar® the following year.