Abbott Labs. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., No. 05 C 6561, 2007 WL 625496 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2007) (Kendall, J.).
Judge Kendall denied plaintiff’s, Abbott, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendant’s, Mylan, antitrust counterclaims. Mylan alleged that two Abbott employees submitted declarations and/or testimony stating the weight and structure of certain oligomers related to the patented invention, despite their knowledge that the tests they relied upon were known to be incapable of measuring the oligomers at issue. Mylan further alleged that based upon these fraudulent statements, the USPTO issued certain of the patents-in-suit which then prevented Mylan from entering the market with a generic version of Abbott’s pharmaceutical Depakote. Abbott relied upon a prior Northern District ruling against third party Torpharm which held that Abbott’s conduct before the USPTO was not inequitable. But the Court held that while that ruling prevented a sham litigation claim, it did not estop Mylan’s inequitable conduct allegations because Mylan was not a party to the prior case and, therefore, had no opportunity to present its evidence and argument. Additionally, the Court held that Mylan adequately alleged antitrust injury by stating that it prepared to enter the market with generic Depakote, but was prevented from doing so by Abbott’s alleged inequitable conduct.