Calcium acetate – USA

Calcium acetate – USA

On Apr 12, 2017, District court of New Jersey issued an opinion & order in an Exceptional case, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 in Roxane Laboratories. v. Camber Pharmaceuticals case.

This matter comes before the Court on the motion by Defendants Camber Pharmacuticals, Inc. and Invagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) to declare this an exceptional case, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and for attorneys’ fees.
This case arises from a patent infringement dispute involving a pharmaceutical, calcium acetate capsules. Plaintiff Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (“Roxane”) owns U.S. Patent No. 8,563,032 (the “’032 patent”), directed to a pharmaceutical calcium acetate formulation; Roxane markets a generic calcium acetate capsule product. Defendants are pharmaceutical manufacturers who market competing generic calcium acetate capsule products. Roxane brought this suit for patent infringement against Defendants and lost. Defendants now move, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, for a declaration that this is an exceptional case and for an award of their attorneys’ fees and costs spent in defending this action.
This Court finds that the case is exceptional based on the objective unreasonableness of Roxane’s patent infringement claim. Court arrives at its determination that this is an exceptional case, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, on the ground that it is “one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of [Roxane’s] litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case).” In the instant case, the intrinsic evidence provides no support for Roxane’s proposed construction and, hence, its infringement claim.
Court concludes that, as to Roxane’s infringement claim, this case stands out from others as exceptionally meritless. Roxane pursued an infringement claim for which it lacked any legal or factual support. Roxane has been unable to point to any colorable factual or legal support for its position. It is indeed an exceptional case & Court it will grant the motion for attorney’s fees.

The court’s award of fees is subject to a review of the defendants’ fee application, which exceeds $2.1 million.
Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. By using the blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice on author's or on his company's behalf.

Copyrights 2024 Pharma IP Circle. All Rights Reserved