As previously disclosed, on July 10, 2006, Forest Laboratories, Inc., Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., and H. Lundbeck A/S (collectively, “Forest”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging that the Company’s filing of an ANDA seeking approval to market its generic version of Forest’s Lexapro® (escitalopram oxalate) drug product infringed Forest’s Patent No. Re. 34,712, which is set to expire on September 13, 2011 (extended to March 14, 2012 based upon a six month pediatric exclusivity). Forest seeks an order from the court which, among other things, directs the FDA not to approve the Company’s ANDA any earlier than the claimed expiration date. The ANDA filed by the Company contained Paragraph IV Certifications challenging Forest’s Patent Nos. Re. 34,712 (“‘712 patent”) and 6,916,941 (“’941 patent”). The Company believes that the ‘712 patent and ’941 patent are invalid and/or will not be infringed by the Company’s manufacture, use or sale of the product. Forest’s suit alleges only that Caraco infringes the ‘712 patent, which the Company intends to vigorously defend. Prior to this action, Forest had filed two lawsuits on the ‘712 patent against other manufacturers who sought to market a generic version of Lexapro®, one against Alphapharm Pty. Ltd. (“Alphapharm”) and the other against IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“IVAX”) and CIPLA Ltd. (“CIPLA”). Forest settled the lawsuit with Alphapharm in October 2005, granting Alphapharm the exclusive right to distribute generic versions of Lexapro® for five years. Alphapharm’s launch date is dependent on a number of factors but is set to be no later than two weeks before the claimed expiration of the ‘712 patent. Forest proceeded in its action against IVAX and CIPLA and on July 13, 2006, Forest obtained an order from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, holding that IVAX and CIPLA’s proposed generic version of Lexapro® infringed the ‘712 patent and that the asserted claims of the ‘712 patent were valid and enforceable. On November 6, 2006, IVAX and CIPLA filed a notice to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit held an oral argument on the case on May 9, 2007, but a decision has not yet issued. On August 23, 2006, Forest filed a motion to transfer its action against the Company to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, where Forest had litigated its case with Ivax. On November 15, 2006, the Court denied the motion and, accordingly, the litigation will proceed in the Eastern District of Michigan. In February of 2007, the Eastern District of Michigan court granted Forest’s motion to stay the proceeding until June 20, 2007 but allowed the parties to exchange documents related to the case. On June 18, 2007, Forest filed a “Motion to Extend the Stay Pending Appeal” of the Federal Circuit’s ruling on Forest v. Ivax. That motion is currently pending. On February 20, 2007, Caraco brought a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District of Michigan court against Forest seeking a declaration that its generic version of Lexapro® will not infringe the related ‘941 patent. On April 13, 2007, Forest granted Caraco a covenant not to sue on the ‘941 patent, and the court, in May 2007, dismissed the case for lack of a controversy. Caraco filed a notice of appeal of that dismissal on June 8, 2007, and that appeal is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On September 5, 2007, in a related case involving one of the same patents that Forest asserted against Caraco, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a finding of patent validity. As previously disclosed, on September 22, 2004, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Ortho-McNeil”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging that the Company’s filing of an ANDA seeking approval to market its generic version of Ortho-McNeil’s Ultracet® brand tramadol/acetaminophen drug product infringed Ortho-McNeil’s patent, which expires on September 6, 2011. Ortho-McNeil sought an order from the district court which, among other things, directed the FDA not to approve the Company’s ANDA any earlier than the claimed expiration date. |