Case 1:05-cv WGY Document 1651 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Similar documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Civil Action No. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

Case 1:13-cv DJC Document 17 Filed 08/14/13 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:11-cv DPW Document 1 Filed 12/01/11 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:16-cv WGY Document 56 Filed 04/03/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS EASTERN DIVISION

Case 1:17-cv MLW Document 222 Filed 04/03/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:12-cv JD Document 48 Filed 10/31/13 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Case 1:10-cv Document 1 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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 1:13-cv FDS Document 57 Filed 08/27/14 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case3:12-cv VC Document28 Filed07/01/14 Page1 of 11

Case 1:14-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

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

Case 1:08-cv WGY Document 36 Filed 01/23/2009 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 2:11-cv ECR -PAL Document 1 Filed 02/25/11 Page 1 of 6

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Civil Action No. 1:12-CV FDS

Case 1:16-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:15-cv MLW Document 44 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:14-cv BAH Document 68-1 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) Plaintiff,

Health Care Law Monthly

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION. Plaintiffs, Defendants. COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS VICTORIA DIVISION

Case 1:02-cv RWZ Document 948 Filed 02/18/13 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

Prathiba M. Singh President, APAA (Indian Group)

Case 2:08-cv JLL-CCC Document 1 Filed 06/11/2008 Page 1 of 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Case 1:14-cv GAO Document 1 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 20 Filed: 04/11/11 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:217

Case 2:16-cv MMD-CWH Document 1 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 5

Case 1:11-cv NMG Document 53 Filed 09/17/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Case4:12-cv JSW Document34 Filed09/19/14 Page1 of 11

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

Case 1:06-cv JJF Document 1 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 224 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Case No. 3:13-cv N

Case 1:15-cv DPW Document 6 Filed 02/18/15 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA, UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

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

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

Case 1:13-cv FDS Document 87 Filed 09/11/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:18-cv RC Document 23 Filed 12/03/18 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 1:18-cv FDS Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

RAMBUS, INC. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Impact on Standards and Antitrust

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DECARATORY RELIEF

Case 9:15-cv KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2015 Page 1 of 7

Case 2:14-cv PMW Document 4 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 20

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

Licensing in the context of start-ups and research based businesses an Introduction

Case 9:13-cv WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2013 Page 1 of 7

Case 2:16-cv JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Case pwb Doc 281 Filed 10/28/16 Entered 10/28/16 13:58:15 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 12

Case 3:13-cv M Document 60 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1778

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS [MARSHALL / TYLER / TEXARKANA] DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:12-cv DPW Document 1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 499 Filed: 12/04/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:6117

Case 1:18-cv RC Document 46 Filed 02/26/19 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Case3:12-cv VC Document70 Filed06/23/15 Page1 of 3

Case 1:05-cv PBS Document 467 Filed 03/19/2008 Page 1 of 8

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

Hague Publishing. Contract

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

OHIO MEDICAID SUPPLEMENTAL REBATE AGREEMENT

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 ILN/1:12-cv Document 14 Filed 05/21/13 Page 1 of 6 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Case MDL No Document 1-1 Filed 12/12/12 Page 1 of 9 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT. Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs ArrivalStar S.A.

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

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

Brief Summary of Precedential Patent Case Law For the Period to

Case 9:16-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2016 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Case: 5:09-cv DDD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/04/09 1 of 5. PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case 1:15-cv RGS Document 10 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 2:17-cv MCE-KJN Document 22 Filed 02/26/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:17-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 09/15/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

COMMONWEALTH SITE READINESS PROGRAM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE RECIPIENT GRANT AGREEMENT

AUBURN UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF INNOVATION ADVANCEMENT AND COMMERCIALIZATION. Ready To Sign non-exclusive licensing program

The Korean Drug Approval-Patent Linkage System: A Comparison with the US Hatch-Waxman Act

Pharmaceutical Patent Settlement Cases: Mixed Signals for Settling Patent Litigation

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 1:15-cv FDS Document 156 Filed 09/13/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

Transcription:

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 1651 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS AMGEN INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION No.: 05-CV-12237WGY F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GmbH and HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. Defendants. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ROCHE'S PROPOSAL PURSUANT TO THE COURT S INSTRUCTION OF DECEMBER 7, 2007 Defendants F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. (collectively Roche submit this memorandum pursuant to the Court s instruction of December 7, 2007, when during the remedy phase of the trial, the Court invited Roche to submit a proposal for economic terms under which the Court might allow Roche, consistent with its FDA approval, to make MIRCERA available to United States patients. Roche s proposal is attached hereto. Having met the Court s request, Roche is looking toward an early decision from the Court on the outstanding issues. Roche believes that having MIRCERA available to patients in the United States, as it is already available to patients outside the U.S., is emphatically in the public interest. Moreover, MIRCERA will benefit patients and health insurance reimbursers such as Medicare by lowering prices and fostering the most cost-effective medical treatment. The medical evidence

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 1651 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 4 and testimony presented to this Court, and the recent FDA approval of MIRCERA, make this point. Roche firmly believes that it is in the public interest to have MIRCERA available to U.S. patients as soon as possible. Roche submits what it earnestly believes is an aggressive plan for economic terms that will aid the Court in allowing MIRCERA on the market, assuming that the Court denies Roche s motions for JMOL and enters judgment in Amgen s favor. Following the Court s observations, this plan incorporates a royalty rate about double that paid currently by Johnson & Johnson for its Procrit product, and also sets an initial WAC price for MIRCERA that is below the existing Aranesp ASP. These terms are even more aggressive that the Court posited as options during the remedy hearing. It is projected that under this current proposal that the savings to Medicare and the U.S. Government and taxpayers for reimbursement for treatments with these pharmaceuticals will be substantial, and easily in the billions of dollars. The obligations on Roche under this proposal are, of course, contingent upon the entry of final judgment in favor of Amgen on at least one patent claim and the affirmation of Amgen s judgment after all appeals have been exhausted; whatever conditions imposed by the Court allowing MIRCERA to be sold in the United States would terminate should asserted claims of the Amgen patents-in-suit be found not to be infringed, invalid or unenforceable and Roche would continue to be able to sell its product in the United States. Roche s decision to stay out of the US market to date was predicated on the Court quickly resolving all issues remaining in this dispute allowing for a prompt appeal. Roche relied on statements from the Court such as I want to keep all of our feet to the fire because I would like to resolve my part of this and get you on to another court. Not selling in the United States, 2

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 1651 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 4 although permitted to do so by the FDA, has and continues to impose a significant hardship on Roche, as well as U.S. patients. Roche has delayed launching its approved product now for almost three months. Roche cannot continue to stay off the market voluntarily if a decision on the outstanding issues, particularly on the permanent injunction, is not to be expected shortly. Based on the Court s statements, Roche anticipated a decision on the outstanding issues around the end of February. Roche respectfully wants to inform the Court that should the Court not be in a position to resolve the pending issues, including the issue of Amgen s request for a permanent injunction, by early March 2008, then Roche will be compelled to reconsider its options and its decision to voluntarily stay off the U.S. market with its approved MIRCERA product. The Court has now received all the evidence and argument on the remedy issue. On February 28, 2008, the Court will hear final oral argument on the parties JMOL motions. Roche respectfully requests that at that February 28, 2008 hearing, the Court rule on Amgen s application for a permanent injunction, and resolve the other outstanding issues. Failing that, Roche respectfully informs the Court that Roche will thereafter take steps to commence marketing MIRCERA in the U.S. 3

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 1651 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 4 Dated: January 28, 2008 Boston, Massachusetts Respectfully submitted, F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD, ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GMBH, and HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. By their Attorneys CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE /s/ Lee Carl Bromberg Lee Carl Bromberg (BBO# 058480 Timothy M. Murphy (BBO# 551926 Julia Huston (BBO# 562160 Keith E. Toms (BBO# 663369 Nicole A. Rizzo (BBO# 663853 BROMBERG & SUNSTEIN LLP 125 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 Tel. (617 443-9292 lbromberg@bromsun.com Leora Ben-Ami (pro hac vice Mark S. Popofsky (pro hac vice Patricia A. Carson (pro hac vice Thomas F. Fleming (pro hac vice Howard S. Suh (pro hac vice Christopher T. Jagoe (pro hac vice KAYE SCHOLER LLP 425 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel. (212 836-8000 I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF. Pursuant to agreement of counsel dated September 9, 2007, paper copies will not be sent to those indicated as non registered participants. 03099/00501 811097.1 /s/ Lee Carl Bromberg Lee Carl Bromberg 4

Case 1:05-cv-12237-WGY Document 1651-2 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 1 ROCHE S PROPOSAL FOR ENTERING THE U.S. MARKET WITH MIRCERA In the event that Roche s motions for JMOL are denied, Roche submits the below proposal to this Court to be able to market and sell MIRCERA in the United States. Roche is prepared to: 1. offer MIRCERA at an initial Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC which is equal to the present Average Selling Price* (ASP of ARANESP less five percent (5%. This per unit WAC would be calculated based on the conversion of monthly MIRCERA dosing to the equivalent monthly Aranesp dosing. * Present Aranesp ASP defined as the ASP that underlies the 1 Q 2008 CMS published Aranesp Medicare Part B reimbursement rate 2. pay Amgen a royalty of twenty percent (20% of the Net Sales, as commonly defined, of MIRCERA in the United States for the duration of those of Amgen s patents that this Court found were not invalid and were infringed by Roche. The above only describes the initial list WAC price for MIRCERA. Roche will likely engage in contractual discounting to customers as necessary to compete effectively in dialysis and CKD markets. These discounts and the competition they will engender, coupled with the ASP reimbursement mechanism itself, will likely deliver lower net costs to providers and payers. Roche s above proposal to the Court is the result of Roche completely rethinking its marketing and sales approach for MIRCERA given the jury verdict and the Court s observations during the remedy phase. Roche has provided an aggressive proposal that, now more than ever, serves the public interest by bringing the benefit of competition to the present monopolistic ESA market and by making this unique and necessary medicine available to U.S. patients. This radically different marketing paradigm reduces sales and marketing costs (including sales persons and advertising far below what we believe our competitors invest in similar functions and services. Roche is not sure how the non-traditional marketing plan will succeed in the face of a longstanding monopoly, or if it will be sufficient to secure significant market share for Roche s product. However, even with such risks and uncertainty, Roche is prepared to employ this plan as it believes it is important that this novel medication reach U.S. patients who need it, and also that the availability of this medication will otherwise serve the public interest by creating opportunities for significant government savings. 03099/00501 811109.1