United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND SANDOZ INC., Plaintiffs,
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant
For Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Plaintiff, Counter Defendant: Robert S. Frank, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, Anna Rachel Dray-Siegel, Daniel C. Winston, Eric J. Marandett, Sophie F. Wang, Choate, Hall & Stewart, Boston, MA; G. Mark Edgarton, Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP, Boston, MA.
For Sandoz Inc., Plaintiff, Counter Defendant: Sarah Chapin Columbia, LEAD ATTORNEY, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Boston, MA; G. Mark Edgarton, Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP, Boston, MA; Melissa Nott Davis, Thomas P. Steindler, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Boston, MA.
For Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Defendant, Counter Claimant: David M. Hashmall, LEAD ATTORNEY, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY; Elaine Herrmann Blais, James Rehnquist, Robert Frederickson, III, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Judge.
Plaintiffs Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (" Momenta" ) and Sandoz Inc. (" Sandoz" ) (collectively, and for simplicity, " Momenta" ) brought this patent infringement action against defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (" Teva" ). The Court allowed Teva's motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment in favor of Teva in January, 2014. Teva now moves for attorneys' fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
III. Background and Procedural History
In February, 2010, Teva announced that it intended to sell generic enoxaparin, an anticoagulant used to prevent blood clots, as soon as it obtained approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Momenta beat Teva to the punch, however, by obtaining FDA approval to market generic enoxaparin in the United States in July, 2010.
In December, 2010, Momenta filed the instant action against Teva, alleging that
Teva infringed two of its patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,575,886 (" the '886 patent" ) and U.S. Patent No. 7,790,466 (" the '466 patent" ). Teva counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and patent invalidity.
The '886 patent claims methods of analyzing batches of enoxaparin based on the presence or absence of individual component sugars of polysaccharides that are produced during the manufacturing process. The '466 patent claims a method of isolating and categorizing tetrasaccharides (four-sugar chains). Both methods allow manufacturers to determine whether a given batch includes the individual sugar chains characteristic of enoxaparin. Momenta alleged that Teva infringed those patents by making material preparations to sell a generic enoxaparin product manufactured using the claimed methods.
In January, 2013, Teva moved for summary judgment of non-infringement of both patents. Shortly thereafter, Momenta's counsel informed Teva's counsel that Momenta was no longer asserting the '466 patent against Teva. Momenta claimed to reserve the right to reassert the '466 patent as circumstances developed. It never moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 to withdraw its claims relating to the '466 patent.
In July, 2013, the Court allowed Teva's motion for summary judgment with respect to the '886 patent and denied Momenta's motion to amend its infringement contentions. Later, it dismissed with prejudice the claims arising under ...