10-Q
MEDICINES CO /DE filed this form 10-Q on 9 Aug 2017
- velhartice.info


Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

In January 2011, we were notified that Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. had submitted an ANDA seeking permission to market its generic version of Angiomax prior to the expiration of the ‘727 patent and ‘343 patent. On February 23, 2011, we filed suit against Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Bioniche Pharma USA, LLC, which we refer to collectively as Mylan, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for infringement of the ‘727 patent and ‘343 patent. Mylan’s answer denied infringement of the ‘727 patent and ‘343 patent and raised counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity of the ‘727 patent and ‘343 patent. On April 13, 2011, we filed a reply denying the counterclaims raised by Mylan. On May 4, 2011, the Court set a pretrial schedule. Following a joint request, the Court issued an amended scheduling order on September 22, 2011. On November 29, 2011, Mylan moved to amend its answer to add counterclaims and affirmative defenses of inequitable conduct and unclean hands. Following motion practice, the Court granted Mylan’s request to add counterclaims and affirmative defenses of inequitable conduct and to add affirmative defenses of unclean hands. On March 7, 2012, we filed a reply denying these counterclaims. A Markman hearing was held on July 30, 2012. The Court issued a Markman Order on August 6, 2012. The parties have completed fact and expert discovery. On June 21, 2013, Mylan filed a summary judgment motion of non-infringement of the ‘727 and ‘343 patents and alternatively that the ‘727 patent was invalid. The Court’s decision granted non-infringement of the ‘343 patent and denied the motion with respect to non-infringement and invalidity of the ‘727 patent. A six day trial directed to the ‘727 patent was completed on June 18, 2014. Post-trial briefs were filed on July 1, 2014 and July 11, 2014. On October 27, 2014, the Court issued an opinion and order finding that Mylan’s ANDA product infringes all of the asserted claims of the ‘727 patent.  The Court further found that Mylan failed to prove that the same asserted claims of the ‘727 patent are invalid or unenforceable.  Specifically, the Court found that Mylan failed to prove its allegations of anticipation, obviousness, non-enablement and unenforceability due to inequitable conduct.  On October 28, 2014 and November 13, 2014, Mylan filed Notices of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On November 25, 2014, we filed a Notice of Cross Appeal of the district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement of the asserted claims of the ‘343 patent that it had issued on December 16, 2013 and the district court’s Markman Order on August 6, 2012. Appellate briefing was completed in April 2015. An oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was scheduled for September 11, 2015. On July 29, 2015, following a Mylan motion for disposition of its appeal in view of the July 2, 2015 Hospira decision, the Federal Circuit Court granted the motion (1) reversing the district court’s judgment as to the ‘727 patent (2) dismissing as moot our cross-appeal (3) vacating the district court’s entry of an injunction, and (4) holding that each party shall bear its own costs. On August 27, 2015, we filed a petition for panel rehearing. Following the November 13, 2015 decision granting our en banc hearing request in the Hospira appeal and vacating the July 2, 2015 decision, we moved to vacate the Federal Circuit Court’s July 29, 2015 Order terminating the Mylan appeal. Following briefing, the Federal Circuit Court granted our motion and reopened the appeal, vacated its July 29, 2015 Order and then stayed the Mylan appeal pending resolution of the Hospira appeal. Following the en banc decision in the Hospira appeal described above, the Federal Circuit Court lifted the stay. The Mylan appeal was ordered to be a companion appeal to the Hospira appeal and was decided by the same judges as the Hospira appeal. The parties were ordered to file new briefs incorporating the en banc decision. The parties submitted revised briefs and this briefing was completed in October 2016. The Federal Circuit Court heard oral argument on December 6, 2016. Mylan’s ANDA received tentative approval from the FDA in February 2017. On April 6, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued a decision reversing the District Court’s finding of infringement of the ‘727 patent and affirming the lower court’s summary judgment of non-infringement of the ‘343 patent. On April 7, 2017, Mylan filed an emergency motion to accelerate the time for any petition for rehearing and issuance of a mandate. On April 11, 2017, we opposed this motion and on April 12, 2017 the Federal Circuit denied Mylan’s request. On May 5, 2017, we filed with the Federal Circuit Court a petition for rehearing or en banc review. On May 12, 2017, the Federal Circuit invited Mylan to respond which they did on May 19, 2017. On May 23, 2017, we filed a motion to file a reply brief. On May 30, 2017, the Federal Circuit Court denied the motion for a reply and on June 6 denied our petition for panel rehearing. The Federal Circuit Court then issued its mandate on June 13, 2017. On June 9, 2017, Mylan filed in the district court a motion to amend the court’s October 27, 2014 judgment. On June 22, 2017, we filed our opposition to amend the final judgment and also moved for a new trial on the doctrine of equivalents of the ‘727 patent. On June 25, 2017, Mylan opposed the motion for a new trial and we filed our reply on June 26th. On June 28, 2017, the court issued an order granting Mylan’s motion to amend the final judgment and denied our motion for a new trial. The district court entered an amended final judgment on June 28, 2017.
  

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.

In March 2011, we were notified that Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. had submitted an ANDA seeking permission to market its generic version of Angiomax prior to the expiration of the ‘727 and ‘343 patents. On April 28, 2011, we filed suit against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Gland Pharma, Inc., which we refer to collectively as Dr. Reddy’s, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for infringement of the ‘727 patent


50