Discovery rulings issue in ANDA case
Eurand, Inc., Cephalon, Inc. and Anesta AG v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 08-889-SLR-MPT; Eurand, Inc., Cephalon, Inc. and Anesta AG v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., C.A. No. 09-18-SLR-MPT, December 9, 2009.
Thynge, M.J. Defendant’s request for lab notebooks and other R&D documents relating to a product other that covered by the patent-in-suit is denied. Defendant’s request for disclosure of secondary considerations evidence is granted.
The patent relates to an extended-release formulation of cyclobenzaprine. Defendant claims inequitable conduct based on the claim that the patentee failed to disclose a patent with the same extended-release technology, making that patent material. The fact that the inherent teaching of a prior art reference is applicable to an obviousness analysis as in Schering does not necessarily make the information relevant. Disclosure of factual evidence upon which plaintiffs may rely concerning secondary considerations is not unreasonable. Interrogatory responses are required to be supplemented.
