Judge dismisses patent infringement action against Intellipharmaceutics Corp.; $IPCI

Judge dismisses patent infringement action against Intellipharmaceutics Corp.; $IPCI

Intellipharmaceutics International (NASDAQ: IPCI; TSX: I)  is engaged in the research, development, and commercialization of controlled-release and targeted-release pharmaceutical products. Controlled release means releasing a drug into the bloodstream or at a target site in the body, over an extended period of time or at predetermined times. In some circumstances, controlled-release drug delivery can enhance efficacy and patient compliance as compared to immediate-release formats for the same drug. 

Judge Pisano of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has dismissed a Hatch-Waxman Act patent infringement action filed by AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical LP and AstraZeneca UK Limited (together, "Astra") against Intellipharmaceutics Corp. ("IPC") and Intellipharmaceutics International Inc. ("IPCI"). Astra had filed suit "because IPC had filed an ANDA to seek approval to market a generic version of Astra's Seroquel XR product.  Both IPC and IPCI are Canadian companies."

In dismissing the suit, Judge Pisano cited "a lack of personal jurisdiction because the ANDA filer did not have the requisite minimum contacts with the state to establish either general or specific jurisdiction."

At www.PatentDocs.org, Andrew Williams provided an overview of civil procedure and due process:

"Due process requires that a defendant have minimum contacts with a state before that state can exercise jurisdiction over them...There are two types of jurisdiction -- (1) general jurisdiction, in which the defendant has "continuous and systematic" contacts with a state such that a court can exercise jurisdiction for any action, and (2) specific jurisdiction, for cases in which general jurisdiction cannot be established, but there are sufficient limited contacts with the state that relate to the claims of the suit."

He then explained all of the claims made by Astra, and described their legal significance. He concluded, "When viewed in their totality, the Court found that these contacts [presented by Astra] were insufficient to establish the continuous and systematic contacts with New Jersey necessary to establish general jurisdiction," nor specific jurisdiction. 

Read the full article at PatentDocs.org