Glaxosmithkline LLC, et al. v. Glenmark Generics Inc., USA, et al, C.A. Nos. 14-877–LPS–CJB; 14-878–LPS-CJB, April 22, 2015.

Burke, M. J.  Report and Recommendation recommends granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motions to dismiss.

The disputed technology relates to carvedilol, initially patented 20 years ago for the treatment of hypertension, and now for the treatment of chronic heart failure.  Defendants filed ANDAs for generic versions of the drug tablets with a section iii carve out relating to the CHF indication.  Both defendants launched their generic products and amended their labels for both indications. Thereafter, one defendant switched back to its original label.  The complaints were amended and motions to dismiss the indirect infringement claims followed.  The Magistrate recommends finding that the induced infringement claims are insufficiently plead with respect to time periods when the labels did not include the CHF indication, but sufficiently plead when both indications were on the labels.  He recommends dismissal without prejudice.  With respect to contributory infringement, the magistrate finds enough factual specificity to put defendants on notice of their claims of contributory infringement.