Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

Good Law
295 F. Supp. 3d 1062
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 19, 2017Case No. 14-cv-04741-RS; Case No. 16-cv-02581-RSCalifornia3,611 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Seeborg, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants Sandoz Inc., Sandoz International GmbH, Sandoz GmbH, and Lek Pharmaceuticals d.d. (collectively, "Sandoz") move for summary judgment as to both noninfringement and damages. Plaintiffs Amgen Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (collectively, "Amgen") oppose summary judgment and move, in the alternative, pursuant to Rule 56(d), to defer a ruling on noninfringement until additional information is produced regarding a pending modification to Sandoz's allegedly infringing process. For the reasons explained below, Sandoz's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement is granted. The motion for summary judgment regarding damages is denied as moot. Amgen's Rule 56(d) motion is denied.

*1065 II. BACKGROUND

Amgen and Sandoz compete to develop, manufacture, promote, and sell biopharmaceutical products. The products at issue here are filgrastim and pegfilgrastim. Filgrastim is the pharmaceutical analog of a protein that naturally occurs in the human body. It stimulates the production of a type of white blood cells ("neutrophils") vital to the human immune system and, accordingly, is useful for treating patients undergoing certain forms of cancer therapy…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.