Amarin Pharma v. Hikma Pharms. United States

Amarin Pharma v. Hikma Pharms. United States

Opinion

/s/ Richard G. Andrews

ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I referred this very interesting case to a magistrate judge. (D.I. 16). She wrote a Report and Recommendation on three pending motions to dismiss. (D.I. 64). Defendants filed objections (D.I. 70, 71), to which Plaintiffs responded (D.I. 77, 78). [*2]  There is even an amicus brief. (D.I. 75). I heard oral argument on October 14, 2021. For the following reasons, I will ADOPT-IN-PART the Report and Recommendation. (D.I. 64). Hikma's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (D.I. 19) is GRANTED. Hikma's motion to dismiss the original complaint (D.I. 11) is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Health Net's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (D.I. 30) is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs sued Defendants for induced infringement of three patents that describe methods of using icosapent ethyl for the reduction of cardiovascular risk. (D.I. 17). Plaintiffs manufacture and sell VASCEPA, a branded version of icosapent ethyl. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 57-58). Defendant Hikma is a generic manufacturer of icosapent ethyl. (Id. at ¶ 1). Defendant Health Net is an insurer that provides coverage for Vascepa and Hikma's generic version. (Id. at ¶¶ 139-40).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is considered a dispositive motion. D. Del. LR 72.1(a)(3). A magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation regarding a case-dispositive motion is reviewed de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

When reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept [*3]  the complaint's factual allegations as true. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). Rule 8(a) requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Id. at 555. The factual allegations do not have to be detailed, but they must provide more than labels, conclusions, or a "formulaic recitation" of the claim elements. Id. ("Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)."). Moreover, there must be sufficient factual matter to state a facially plausible claim to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). The facial plausibility standard is satisfied when the complaint's factual content "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. ("Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.