Judge Sue L. Robinson recently considered plaintiff Antares Pharma, Inc.’s amended motion for preliminary injunction filed the same day it amended its complaint for infringement of the three patents-in-suit. Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 14-270-SLR (D. Del. July 10, 2014). Judge Robinson denied the motion on the basis that Antares did not meet its burden of showing likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 3-15. Prior to reaching this decision, Judge Robinson found that the patents-in-suit claim a jet injector, as opposed to “an autoinjector or hand-powered syringe.” Id. at 3. Judge Robinson construed a “jet-injector” as “a powered injector used to achieve the delivery of medicaments in a high speed stream, that is, at a pressure, force, and speed sufficiently high so that the medicament exits the needle tip as a fluid jet and not as a bolus. The critical difference between a jet injector and autoinjectors or hand-powered syringes is how the medicament is delivered – dispersed remotely from the needle-tip Uet) rather than deposited in a locus near the needle tip (bolus).” Id. at 4. While Antares presented expert testimony that defendant’s accused device is a jet injection device, Judge Robinson concluded that likelihood of success on the merits was not established on the record before the Court. Notably missing was any “comparison of Antares’ jet injector with either a hand syringe or [defendant’s] autoinjector,” or any illustration of “the ‘rapid spray’ dispersion of a jet injector.” Id. at 4-5.
Judge Robinson did find that Antares met its burden of establishing irreparable harm because it “has the only available subcutaneous injector for methotrexate on the market, with [defendant] set to launch its competing produce as early as July 10, 2014.” Id. at 15. Judge Robinson found the balance of harms neutral, however, because delaying defendant’s launch would cause monetary damages to defendant. Id.