In denying a brand manufacturer's motion to dismiss
antitrust counterclaims and motion to stay pending appeal of a
preliminary injunction order, the US District Court for the
District of New Jersey placed significant weight on practical
factors, such as maximizing judicial economy and streamlining
substantive issues. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. Fera Pharm.,
LLC, Case No. 15-3654 (D.N.J., May 19, 2017) (McNulty,
J).
Fresenius's patents at issue
relate to formulations of levothyroxine, a hormone used to treat
hypothyroidism. Earlier in this case, Fera filed inequitable
conduct counterclaims, alleging that Fresenius submitted a
declaration containing material omissions and misleading statements
to the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) during prosecution.
Fera later filed antitrust counterclaims on the grounds that
Fresenius delayed Fera's entry into the market by engaging in a
sham litigation based on fraudulently obtained patents. Although
these two counterclaims
