By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Actavis Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14-1381-RGA (D.Del. February 8, 2017), the Court granted defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Counts II and VI of the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). With respect to Counts II and VI, Teva argued that it was not a proper defense because "all alleged infringing activity had ceased" prior to Teva's acquisition of Defendant Actavis. Id. at *1. Plaintiffs responded that as "owner and real party in interest . . . it is plausible that Teva [would be] liable for the past infringements." Id. The Court noted that, while Teva may ultimately be financially liable for the past infringements, Plaintiffs had not pled that Teva is an infringer. Thus, the Court found that Teva was not a proper defendant as to the counts based on acts of infringement that occurred prior to Teva's acquisition of Actavis. Id. Therefore, Counts II and VI of the Complaint were dismissed as to Teva.
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.