Wyeth v. Lupin: Maryland District Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
In Wyeth v. Lupin, Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 07, Civ. 0632 (D. Md Sep. 11, 2007), the District Court for the District of Maryland denied Baltimore-based Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s (LPI) motion to dismiss an action against it and its parent, Mumbai, India-based Lupin Ltd. (Lupin), brought by pharmaceutical giant Wyeth. In reaching its decision, the District Court concluded that "when a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation exists to distribute foreign-produced generic drugs in the U.S. and is actively involved in the ANDA process, the subsidiary also 'submits' an ANDA application" making it subject to the Hatch-Waxman Act like its parent.
This case began when Lupin filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of EFFEXOR® in the U.S. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the filing of an ANDA is an act of infringement. Accordingly, Wyeth, which owns U.S. Patents 6,274,171; 6,403,120; and 6,419,958 for venlafaxine hydrochloride (marketed by Wyeth as EFFEXOR® XR capsules), sued LPI and Lupin within the statutory 45-day period after receiving Lupin's "Paragraph IV" Notice Letter on January 30, 2007.
LPI's Motion to Dismiss
LPI moved, under F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6), to dismiss the complaint against it, arguing that under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the only act of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) was Lupin's filing of the ANDA with the FDA. Wyeth sought to maintain LPI in the lawsuit, arguing that there is no “one-defendant-per-ANDA” rule under the Hatch-Waxman Act. LPI, Wyeth said, acted in concert with Lupin to violate Wyeth’s patents.
The District Court began its analysis by noting that Lupin had made the same arguments, unsuccessfully, in Aventis Pharma Deutschland GMBH v. Lupin Ltd., 403 F. Supp. 2d 484, 494 (E.D. Va. 2005). In that case, the district court found:
"LPI’s relationship with Lupin was that of a subsidiary of the applicant and that subsidiary
submitted the ANDA application to the FDA as agent on the foreign company’s behalf."
The Maryland District Court also noted that in the Aventis case, LPI had countersigned Lupin's ANDA, which provided further indication that LPI was more than a “mailbox” for Lupin’s U.S. business interests. The District Court then distinguished the present case from SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 287 F. Supp. 2d 576 (E.D. Pa. 2002), where an innovator sought to amend it complaint by adding a third-party manufacturer that was supplying an active ingredient for the generic drugs at issue in the disputed ANDA. Concluding that LPI had not met its burden, the Maryland District Court then found:
"LPI is actively involved with filing Lupin’s ANDAs with the FDA, and marketing and distributing the approved generic drugs in the United States. LPI’s role in filing the ANDA is distinct from the future promises of support made by the third-party manufacturers in the SmithKline cases. The Court does not read § 271(e)(2) as broadly as the Aventis court, which placed significance on LPI’s countersignature as part of its agent-principal relationship with Lupin. But when a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation exists to distribute foreign-produced generic drugs in the U.S. and is actively involved in the ANDA process, the subsidiary also 'submits' an ANDA application."
LPI also moved, unsuccessfully, to dismiss the induced infringement claims against it. In its analysis of LPI's arguments, the District Court noted that the Federal Circuit has recognized a cause of action for induced infringement under § 271(e)(2), Allergan, Inc. v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 324 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (per curiam), and also acknowledged that other district courts before and after Allergan have disagreed about whether inducement liability exists for entities that were not the named ANDA filers (citing S.D. New York., D. of Delaware, N.D. West Virginia, E.D. Pennsylvania, N.D. Illinois). Based on the pleadings in this case, the Court sided with Wyeth:
"Wyeth has sufficiently alleged that LPI actively induced infringement under § 271(e)(2). Wyeth alleges that LPI was actively involved in the ANDA submission process, aided and
abetted the inducement of the patents-in-suit, and upon FDA approval, will infringe the patents-in-suit 'by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing' Lupin’s proposed generic capsules. As Wyeth’s claim is not foreclosed by § 271(e)(2) and has adequately alleged an inducement claim against LPI, Wyeth has satisfied the notice pleading requirements."
Held: LPI's motion to dismiss was denied.
Comments:
- Had the Maryland District Court decided this matter differently, Wyeth would be left suing a foreign entity in a U.S. forum (Maryland) where personal jurisdiction would be based on Lupin's filing of its ANDA with the FDA (which just happens to be located in Rockville, MD), and based on whatever other contacts Lupin has in the forum through its subsidiary, LPI. See Personal Jurisdiction and the Foreign Defendant, by Lisa Savitt and Melissa Pierre for a good summary of personal jurisdiction issues related to foreign defendants.
-
It's unclear from this case whether a U.S. subsidiary that exists simply to distribute foreign-produced generic drugs in the U.S. and is not actively involved in the ANDA process would prevail on a motion to dismiss in Maryland.
