Font Size: 
Weil Gotshal Scores for Merck in Singulair Patent Dispute With Teva
The American Lawyer
August 21, 2009
Weil, Gotshal & Manges's Matt Powers has taken his lumps in the press for his unsuccessful defense of Microsoft in the Tyler, Texas, trial that resulted in a $290 million judgment against the software company -- and a finding by Judge Leonard Davis that Powers made inappropriate arguments at trial. But on Wednesday, he and Weil partner Nick Barzoukas stepped into the winner's circle when Trenton, N.J., federal district court Judge Garrett Brown Jr. upheld Merck's patent for its best-selling product, the asthma and allergy drug Singulair. Here's Brown's opinion.
Two years ago, a Merck subsidiary sued the generic drug manufacturer Teva Pharmaceuticals, which was planning to introduce a copycat of Singulair, for patent infringement. At a four-day bench trial in February, Teva's lawyers -- Daryl Wiesen of Goodwin Procter and Ralph Gabric of Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione -- argued that Merck's patent was obvious and that it was obtained through inequitable conduct. But Brown, chief judge for the district of New Jersey, rejected those arguments. He found Teva had infringed Merck's patent and barred Teva from introducing a generic version of Singulair before the expiration of Merck's patent in 2012.
Barzokas referred us to Merck's press release. "The court appropriately ruled that the patent for Singulair in the U.S. is valid," said Merck general counsel Bruce Kuhlik in a statement. "We invest heavily in the R&D that is needed to discover innovative medicines like Singulair, and we will vigorously defend our intellectual property rights."
Teva's statement, meanwhile, said that the company is reviewing its options.
The huge win for Merck -- Singulair brought in revenue of $2.3 billion in the first six months of 2009 -- sent Merck's shares on an upswing Wednesday. Merck CEO Richard Clark told Dow Jones in an interview in July that he was so confident the company would win the litigation with Teva that he didn't have a contingency plan in case it lost.
This article first appeared on The Am Law Litigation Daily blog on AmericanLawyer.com.
