Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Citations: 60 F. Supp. 3d 261; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162926; 2014 WL 6481668Docket: Civil Action No. 10-12079-NMG
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts; November 19, 2014; Federal District Court
Plaintiffs Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sandoz Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. regarding two patents related to the analysis and categorization of enoxaparin, an anticoagulant. Teva sought summary judgment, which the court granted in January 2014, ruling in favor of Teva. Teva subsequently moved for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, arguing that the case was "exceptional" due to Momenta's lack of an objective basis for the lawsuit and alleged misconduct in securing the '886 patent. The '886 patent pertains to methods for analyzing enoxaparin batches, while the '466 patent, which Momenta later chose not to assert, involves isolating tetrasaccharides. The court found Teva's claims regarding the exceptional nature of the case unpersuasive and declined to award attorneys’ fees, rejecting the notion that Momenta's litigation lacked a sound basis, despite their FDA approval using a method not covered by the '886 patent. The Court determined that it would not infer that Teva did not use the claimed methods because it was plausible that Teva employed them, even though non-infringing methods were available. Momenta's decision to continue litigation on the '886 patent after the Federal Circuit vacated a related injunction was deemed reasonable, especially in light of the Federal Circuit's reliance on § 271(e) of the Hatch-Waxman Act, which justified Momenta's pursuit of claims under § 271(g). Although the Court ruled for Teva at summary judgment, it acknowledged the ongoing debate regarding the applicability of § 271(g) to Teva’s activities. Furthermore, Momenta's actions regarding the '466 patent were also deemed reasonable, given its awareness of Teva’s overseas manufacturing process involving tetrasaccharides, which are central to the '466 patent claims. Despite not amending its complaint, Momenta promptly notified Teva of its decision to drop those claims after discovery. As a result, Teva was not entitled to attorneys’ fees related to the '466 patent. The Court also rejected Teva's request for fees based on allegations of Momenta's misconduct concerning the '886 patent, finding insufficient evidence of bad faith or that Momenta's actions affected the litigation. Consequently, Teva's motion for attorneys’ fees was denied.