Plaintiff prevails on infringement and validity following bench trial
In re: Brimonidine Patent Litigation, MDL Docket No. 07-md-1866-GMS, October 23, 2009.
Sleet, C. J. The Court finds that the defendants' proposed generic products infringe the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit; (B) the patents-in-suit are not invalid; (C) the patents-in-suit are not unenforceable; and (D) an award for attorneys' fees and costs is not warranted in this case. The Court also grants the plaintiff's Rule 52(c) motion, and denies defendant’s Rule 52(c) motion.
This decision follows an eight-day bench trial held from March 9 through March 18, 2009. The patents-in-suit relate to brimonidine tartrate, an alpha-2-adrenergic agonist drug compound that is used in ophthalmic solutions for the treatment of glaucoma. Plaintiff markets its brimonidine tartrate products under the ALPHAGAN P® brand name for use in the treatment of glaucoma. This consolidated patent infringement action arises out of ANDA filings by certain defendants seeking to market generic brimonidine products. Following an eight-day bench trial, the Court concludes that the defendants' proposed generic products infringe the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit; the patents-in-suit are not invalid nor are they unenforceable. In addition, because the Court does not find this case to be exceptional by clear and convincing evidence as required by 35 U.S.C. § 285, the court will not award attorneys' fees and costs. Turning to plaintiff’s Rule 52(c) motion, the Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law regarding prior art references or combinations of references not raised at trial.
