Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/09/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Similar documents
Case 1:12-cv SLR Document 18 Filed 08/27/12 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 71 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Some Declaratory Judgment Guidance For ANDA Litigants

Case 3:12-cv PGS-LHG Document 1 Filed 06/25/12 Page 1 of 41 PageID: 1

Case 1:16-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Attorneys for Defendants Watson Laboratories, Inc. and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Case 1:17-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:09-cv JJF Document 36 Filed 02/09/10 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:16-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 04/07/16 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:16-cv RBK-JS Document 1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 1

Case 1:16-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 2:11-cv WHW -MCA Document 7 Filed 09/12/11 Page 1 of 17 PageID: 57

Case 2:15-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 81 PageID: 1

Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document 17 Filed 04/20/2009 Page 1 of 28 : :

Case 1:08-cv Document 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 2:12-cv WHW-MCA Document 10 Filed 07/23/12 Page 1 of 20 PageID: 141

Case 1:11-cv EGS Document 10 Filed 04/25/12 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:16-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 3:15-cv MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 38 PageID: 1

Case 1:15-cv RMB-JS Document 1 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 3:18-cv FLW-LHG Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 25 PageID: 1

Case 1:15-cv LPS Document 118 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2856 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:18-cv IMK Document 250 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2905 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 3:10-cv JAP -TJB Document 1 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 1

Case 1:18-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:10-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 10/05/10 Page 1 of 20

Case 2:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 218 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 1:09-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 07/13/2009 Page 1 of 17

Case 1:11-cv RGA Document 10 Filed 01/13/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 47

Case 1:18-cv LPS Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 2:15-cv WHW-CLW Document 1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 145 PageID: 1

Case 1:17-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 10/20/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Supreme Court of the United States

Case 3:16-cv MAS-LHG Document 1 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 1:18-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 01/30/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:18-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 87 PageID #: 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:10-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 10/25/10 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:16-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 3:14-cv MLC-TJB Document Filed 07/24/15 Page 2 of 16 PageID: 1111 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1 BACKGROUND...

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Supreme Court of the United States

PHARMACEUTICAL LAW GROUP PC

Case 1:07-cv RMU Document 71-2 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 1 of 6. ANDA , Amlodipine Besylate Tablets, 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and 10 mg.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

No FOREST LABORATORIES, INC., FORES~LASO~TO~S Hot~mes, L~., ~D H. LU~.CK A/S, Petitioners,

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

No IN THE EISAI CO. LTD AND EISAI MEDICAL RESEARCH, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., through its GATE PHARMACEUTICALS Division,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Iff/]) FEB Gregory 1. Glover Pharmaceutical Law Group PC 900 Seventh Street, NW Suite 650 Washington, DC

HOGAN & HARTSON APR -9 P4 :18 BY HAND DELIVERY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION, AKRON

PENDING LEGISLATION REGULATING PATENT INFRINGEMENT SETTLEMENTS

Case 4:15-cv Document 1 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1

An ANDA Update. June 2004 Bulletin 04-50

Case 1:07-cv RMU Document 81 Filed 06/27/2007 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 3:11-cv JAP -TJB Document 32 Filed 07/06/11 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 530 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Case 1:18-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1

I'D [3, 2 7 ~ ~ a Anthony Figg Lisa N. Phillips

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 1:11-cv LPS Document 497 Filed 05/20/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 2:14-cv Document 1 Filed 08/01/14 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case: 5:17-cv DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/06/17 Page: 1 of 5 - Page ID#: 1

Case 1:10-cv JCJ Document 20 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO TRANSFER OR STAY

Case 1:14-cv IMK Document 125 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 1959

Case 1:10-cv MGC Document 11-1 Filed 11/18/10 Page 1 of 55 EXHIBIT A

Litigation Webinar Series. Hatch-Waxman 101. Chad Shear Principal, San Diego

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/16/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1

Case 1:17-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 04/13/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

A. ANDAs and Eligibility for 180-day Exclusivity

Case 1:14-cv SLR-SRF Document 61 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 634 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

o 1205 Culbreth Dr., Suite 200, Wilmington, NC Phone : Facsimile :

COMPLAINT. Plaintiff, The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC ( Green Pet Shop or. Plaintiff ), by and through its attorneys, THE RANDO LAW FIRM P.C.

We have carefully considered the Petition.! For the reasons described below, the Petition is granted.

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

2:15-cv LJM-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 01/14/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

) ) Court to enter a preliminary injunction ordering the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) to

A. Bayer's New Drug Application for Precose

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Plaintiff Case No.: 1:17-cv-6236 COMPLAINT

Teva v. EISAI: What's the Real Controversy

Case 9:16-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2016 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case 1:10-cv Document 1 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Delayed Access to Generic Medicine: A Comment on the Hatch-Waxman Act and the "Approval Bottleneck

Case 1:07-cv MRB Document 6 Filed 11/06/2007 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Case 1:10-cv LJM-DML Document 186 Filed 11/09/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 2242

Caraco V. Novo Nordisk: Antitrust Implications

Issue Brief for Congress Received through the CRS Web

S To prohibit brand name drug companies from compensating generic drug companies to delay the entry of a generic drug into the market.

Health Care Law Monthly

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 05/31/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1

Case 2:10-cv JLL -CCC Document 38 Filed 12/03/10 Page 1 of 36 PageID: 321 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Transcription:

Case: 1:16-cv-02988 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/09/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, and TORRENT PHARMA INC., v. Plaintiff, Case No. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., and DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD., Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited and Torrent Pharma Inc. (collectively Torrent ), by and through their counsel, hereby bring their Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. and Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. (collectively Daiichi ), and allege as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited is an Indian corporation, having its principal place of business at off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Gujarat India 380009. 2. Torrent Pharma Inc. is a corporation and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 150 Allen Road, Suite 102, Basking Ridge, NJ 07920. 3. On information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at Two Hilton Court, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 and has a 1

Case: 1:16-cv-02988 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/09/16 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:2 registered agent for service of process in Illinois, National Registered Agents Inc., located at 208 S. LaSalle St., Ste. 814, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 4. On information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. was formed as the result of a merger between Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Sankyo Co., Ltd. 5. On information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., is a Japanese corporation having its principal place of business at 3-5-1, Nihonbashi-honcho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103-8426, Japan. 6. On information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd is the parent company of Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., and Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. operates as the U.S. headquarters of Daiichi Sankyo, Co., Ltd. NATURE OF THE ACTION 7. This is a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of non-infringement of United States Patent No. 6,878,703 ( the 703 patent ) to enable Torrent to bring its generic olmesartan medoxomil tablets in dosages of 5 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg to market at the earliest possible date under the applicable statutory and FDA regulatory provisions and to allow the public to enjoy the benefits of generic competition for these products. 8. This Complaint arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., as amended by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-417, 98 Stat. 1585 (1984 (codified as amended at 21 U.S.C. 355)) (hereinafter Hatch-Waxman Amendments ), and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-173, 17 Stat. 2066 (2003) (hereinafter MMA ), based upon an actual controversy between the parties 2

Case: 1:16-cv-02988 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/09/16 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:3 to declare that Torrent is free, upon approval by the FDA, to manufacture, use, market, sell, offer to sell, and/or import its proposed Torrent s ANDA Product as described in ANDA 20-2375 upon the expiration of United States Patent No. 5,616,599 ( the 599 patent ) and any applicable pediatric exclusivity. 9. Apotex, Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Inc. et al., N.D. Ill., Case No. 12-cv-9295, 15-cv- 3695 (Judge Coleman) is a nearly identical case to this one involving Apotex s generic 5mg, 20mg, or 40mg olmesartan medoxomil product. In that case, Judge Coleman issued an order on January 8, 2016 granting Apotex s summary judgment of non-infringement stating, Noninfringement of the 703 patent follows as a matter of law from the fact that it has been formally disclaimed. (D.I. 66, p. 8) On March 2, 2016, Judge Coleman entered a final judgment in favor of Apotex. 10. Previous to Judge Coleman s order, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Apotex s complaint presented a justiciable case or controversy because [u]nder the statute that governs marketing approval of generics, Apotex has a concrete, potentially highvalue stake in obtaining the judgment it seeks. Apotex, Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Inc., 781 F.3d 1356, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Certiorari was denied in the jurisdictional appeals. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 481 (2015); Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 136 S. Ct. 485 (2015). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202; and under 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(C). 12. Upon information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo Inc. is the U.S. subsidiary of Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. that sells pharmaceutical drug products, including olmesartan medoxomil 3

Case: 1:16-cv-02988 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/09/16 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:4 products, manufactured by Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. in the U.S. and in this judicial district. See website of Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. attached hereto as Exhibit A. 13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Daiichi Sankyo Inc. because it has designated an agent in this district for service of process. On information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo also employs sales agents in Chicago to sell its pharmaceutical products in the Northern District of Illinois. See website of Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., attached as Exhibit B. 14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Daiichi Sankyo Inc. and Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. at least because of their continuous and systematic contacts with the state of Illinois, including conducting of substantial and regular business therein through marketing and sales of pharmaceutical products in Illinois including but not limited to the olmesartan medoxomil products. 15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Daiichi Sankyo Inc. because Daiichi Sankyo Inc., upon information and belief, directly or indirectly markets and sells pharmaceutical products throughout the United States and in this judicial district. Upon information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo Inc. purposefully has conducted and continues to conduct business in this judicial district, and this judicial district is a destination of Daiichi Sankyo Inc. s pharmaceutical products. Upon information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo Inc. has previously submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court and has further previously availed itself of this Court by filing suit in this jurisdiction. 16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. because Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., upon information and belief, is in the business of manufacturing, marketing, importing and selling pharmaceutical drug products and directly, or through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, including Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., manufactures, markets and sells 4

Case: 1:16-cv-02988 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/09/16 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:5 pharmaceutical drug products throughout the United States and in this judicial district. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. derives substantial revenue from the sale of its products in this district. 17. On information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., at least because the preparation of the New Drug Application ( NDA ) for olmesartan medoxomil (Benicar ) and/or the subsequent marketing and selling of Benicar in this judicial district were done with the cooperation, participation, and/or assistance of Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. 18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. at least because, on information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. so dominates Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. that Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. is a mere instrumentality for its parent company, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., to market and sell olmesartan medoxomil (Benicar ) throughout the United States and in this judicial district. For example, on information and belief, one of the senior executive officers of Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Dr. Glenn Gormely, is the Chairman and President of Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. Moreover, on information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. benefits financially from the marketing, distribution, and sale of Benicar in the United States and in this judicial district and reports Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. s earnings as part of Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. s consolidated financial statements. On information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., is a business unit of Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., and the President of Commercial Operations at Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. reports to the CEO of Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. This court has personal jurisdiction over Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. by virtue of, inter alia, the above-mentioned facts. 19. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. because Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd., upon information and belief, has previously submitted to the 5

Case: 1:16-cv-02988 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/09/16 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:6 jurisdiction of this Court and has further availed itself of this Court by filing suit in this jurisdiction. 20. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b), (c), 1400 (b) and/or 21 U.S.C. 355. PATENT IN SUIT 21. On its face the 703 patent entitled Pharmaceutical Composition indicates it was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on April 12, 2005. A copy of the 703 patent is attached as Exhibit C. 22. According to the records at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Sankyo Company, Limited is the assignee of the 703 patent. 23. On information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. was the successor in interest at the time to the 703 patent after the merger between Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Sankyo Co., Ltd. 24. On July 11, 2006, the term of every claim of the 703 patent was disclaimed. See Disclaimer, dated 7/11/06, attached hereto as Exhibit D. BACKGROUND 25. In December 2003, Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 ( MMA ). Title XI of that Act entitled Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals, which included a provision allowing an ANDA applicant to bring a declaratory judgment action for invalidity or non-infringement of an Orange Book listed patent if the NDA holder does not sue within 45 days of receiving notice of a Paragraph IV certification. 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(C). 6

Case: 1:16-cv-02988 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/09/16 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:7 26. The MMA also added forfeiture provisions for the 180-day exclusivity to which a first generic ANDA filer might otherwise be entitled pursuant to the Hatch Waxman Act. 21 U.S.C. 355 (j)(5)(d). The forfeiture provision at issue here requires, inter alia, the entry of a judgment of non-infringement, unenforceability or invalidity with respect to the patents against which a first ANDA filer has filed a Paragraph IV certification, regardless of whether those patents are asserted against subsequent ANDA filers. 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(D)(i)(I)(bb). 27. Upon information and belief, Daiichi Sankyo Inc. is the current holder of approved New Drug Application ( NDA ) No. 21-286 for Benicar tablets containing olmesartan medoxomil 5 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg tablets. 28. Daiichi identified the 703 patent along with the 599 patent to the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) for listing in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly referred to as the Orange Book ), as patents to which a claim of patent infringement could reasonably be asserted if a person not licensed by the owner engaged in the manufacture, use, or sale of the drug products containing olmesartan medoxomil 5 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg tablets ( olmesartan medoxomil products ). 29. The 599 and 703 patents remain listed in the Orange Book with respect to NDA No. 21-286 and Daiichi maintains and continues to represent to the public that the 703 patent claims the drug approved in NDA 21-286 or a method of using that drug, and that a claim of patent infringement could reasonably be asserted against any unlicensed ANDA applicant who attempts to market a generic version of the drug prior to the delisting of the 703 patent. The FDA Orange Book also lists a six month pediatric exclusivity for the 599 patent, which upon information and belief will prevent ANDA filers from obtaining final FDA marketing approval 7

Case: 1:16-cv-02988 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/09/16 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:8 for its generic olmesartan medoxomil product until six months after the expiration of the 599 patent. 30. According to Orange Book listings, Benicar, or treatments using Benicar are claimed in the 703 patent. 31. Torrent has submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application ( ANDA ) 20-2375 for a proposed drug product containing 5 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg olmesartan medoxomil ( Torrent ANDA Product ). Torrent s ANDA seeks FDA approval for the commercial manufacture, use, importation, offer for sale and sale of generic olmesartan medoxomil 5 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg tablets. Torrent is ready to market the Torrent ANDA Product as soon as the FDA approves its ANDA. See, Declaration of Dawn Chitty attached as Exhibit E (the statements of which are expressly incorporated herein). 32. Torrent filed a certification under 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(III) ( Paragraph III certification ) to Daiichi s 599 patent certifying that Torrent will wait until the expiration of the 599 patent and any applicable pediatric exclusivity, i.e., on October 25, 2016, to market Torrent s ANDA products. 33. Torrent filed a certification under 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) ( Paragraph IV certification ) certifying that the 703 patent will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of Torrent s ANDA Product. 34. In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(B) and 21 C.F.R. 314.95, Torrent, on November 16, 2010, served Daiichi (one Daiichi entity in Parsippany, NJ and the other entity in Japan) each with a Notice Letter informing Daiichi of Torrent s ANDA seeking approval to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, importation, offer for sale, or sale of the Torrent s ANDA Product before the expiration of the 703 patent. Daiichi received these Notice Letters on 8

Case: 1:16-cv-02988 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/09/16 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:9 November 18, 2010. Torrent s Notice Letter included a Paragraph IV certification, that the 703 patent would not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of Torrent s ANDA Product. Daiichi did not sue Torrent for patent infringement within 45 days of receiving notice of Torrent s paragraph IV certification (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(C)). 35. Torrent desires to bring its generic olmesartan medoxomil tablets in dosages of 5 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg to market and to allow the public to enjoy the benefits of generic competition for these products at the earliest possible date under the applicable statutory and FDA regulatory provisions. 36. On information and belief, the earliest possible date that Torrent can obtain final FDA marketing approval for its ANDA Product is upon the expiration of the 599 patent and any applicable pediatric exclusivity on October 25, 2016. However, unless more than 75 days before the expiration of the 599 patent and any applicable pediatric exclusivity, a court enters a final decision from which no appeal (other than a petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari) has been or can be taken that the 703 patent is invalid or not infringed, Torrent will not be able to begin marketing its ANDA Product upon the expiration of the 599 patent and any applicable pediatric exclusivity. 37. Upon information and belief, Matrix Laboratories Limited ( Matrix ), now Mylan Laboratories Limited ( Mylan ), was the first generic ANDA applicant to have filed a Paragraph IV certification against both the 599 and 703 patents with respect to olmesartan medoxomil tablets 5 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg, challenging, inter alia, the validity of both patents. Daiichi filed suit against Matrix in the District of New Jersey for patent infringement, alleging that Matrix infringed the 599 patent, but on information and belief did not assert the 703 patent against Matrix in that lawsuit. Matrix failed in its Paragraph IV challenge to the validity of the 599 9

Case: 1:16-cv-02988 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/09/16 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:10 patent, and in 2010, the Federal Circuit affirmed the validity of the 599 patent in Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Matrix Labs., 619 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 38. Because Matrix failed in its attempt to have the 599 patent held invalid, Matrix s Paragraph IV certification with respect to that patent converted to a Paragraph III certification, which requires Mylan to wait until the expiration of the 599 patent and any applicable pediatric exclusivity (now October 25, 2016) before it can market its generic olmesartan products. 39. On information and belief, despite Matrix s failure to invalidate the 599 patent, Mylan may retain a 180-day first generic applicant exclusivity by virtue of Matrix s Paragraph IV certification against the 703 patent. As such, the FDA will be prohibited from granting final approval to Torrent to market its olmesartan medoxomil tablets 5 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg upon the expiration of the 599 patent and any applicable pediatric exclusivity, unless more than 75 days before the expiration of the 599 patent and any applicable pediatric exclusivity, a court enters a final decision from which no appeal (other than a petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari) has been or can be taken that the 703 patent is invalid or not infringed. 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(D)(i)(I)(bb)(AA). As such, unless the Court first declares the 703 patent invalid, unenforceable or not infringed by Torrent s ANDA Product, Torrent will be prohibited from selling its product until 180 days after Mylan chooses to market its olmesartan medoxomil tablets 5 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg generic product, thereby injuring Torrent by depriving it of sales revenue for that period of time and injuring the public by depriving the public of the benefit of the generic competition that would otherwise be provided by Torrent s ANDA product. 40. On information and belief, no court has entered the final decision identified in 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(D)(i)(I)(bb)(AA) with respect to the 703 patent. Upon information and 10

Case: 1:16-cv-02988 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/09/16 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:11 belief, no court has entered a final decision from which an appeal has been or can be taken that the 703 patent is invalid or not infringed. 41. On information and belief, no court has signed a settlement order or consent decree identified in 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(D)(i)(I)(bb)(BB) that enters final judgment which includes a finding that the 703 patent is invalid or not infringed. forth herein. COUNT I DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE 703 PATENT 42. Torrent realleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1-41 as if fully set 43. The 703 patent is not enforceable because every claim was disclaimed, the manufacture, marketing, use, offer for sale, sale and/or importation of the product that is the subject of Torrent s ANDA No. 20-2375 will not directly infringe, induce or contribute to the infringement by others of the claims of the 703 patent, nor are the claims of the 703 patent being infringed by the filing of Torrent s ANDA 20-2375. 44. There is a substantial and continuing controversy between Daiichi and Torrent and a declaration of rights is both necessary and appropriate to establish that Torrent does not infringe any valid or enforceable claim of the 703 patent and allow it to bring its ANDA product to market upon the expiration of the 599 patent and any applicable pediatric exclusivity. 45. But-for Daiichi s decision to list the 703 patent in the Orange Book in the first place, FDA approval of Torrent s ANDA would not have been independently delayed by that patent. Torrent is being injured by Daiichi s actions of requesting the FDA to list the 703 patent in the FDA Orange Book and continuing the listing in the FDA Orange Book. 11

Case: 1:16-cv-02988 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/09/16 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:12 46. Torrent s injury can be redressed by the requested relief: a declaratory judgment of noninfringement would trigger first applicant Mylan s 180-day exclusivity period, which otherwise will block final FDA marketing approval of Torrent s ANDA even after the expiration of the 599 patent and any applicable pediatric exclusivity. If Torrent is blocked by Mylan s first applicant exclusivity, Torrent will be monetarily harmed, as it will lose sales of its ANDA product by virtue of not being able to enter the market at the earliest possible date under the applicable statutory and FDA regulatory provisions, and be deprived of an economic opportunity to compete in the market for olmesartan medoxomil 5 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg tablets. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Torrent respectfully requests the Court to enter judgment as follows: A. Declaring that the claims of the 703 patent have not been infringed by the filing of Torrent s ANDA 20-2375; B. Declaring that the manufacture, marketing, use, offer for sale, sale and/or importation of the products that are the subject of Torrent s ANDA 20-2375 have not infringed, do not infringe, and would not, if marketed, infringe or induce or contribute to the infringement by others of any claims of the 703 patent; C. Awarding Torrent its costs, expenses and reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285; D. Awarding Torrent such other relief that the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. E. Entering a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 that the Torrent ANDA product will not infringe the 703 patent. 12

Case: 1:16-cv-02988 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/09/16 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:13 F. Entering a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 that the 703 patent cannot be enforced. G. Entering a final judgment on a separate paper or document under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). H. Entering a final judgment into the docket under Fed. R. Civ. P. 79(a). I. Ordering the court clerk to enter a final judgment and notify the parties immediately and record such notification into the docket in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P.77. Dated: March 9, 2016 /s/ Joseph E. Cwik Shashank Upadhye shashank@amintalati.com Joseph E. Cwik joe@amintalati.com AMIN TALATI & UPADHYE, LLC 100 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel. 312.466.1033 Fax 312.884.7352 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited and Torrent Pharma, Inc. 13