The opinion of the court was delivered by: Matthew F. Kennelly, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Apotex Corp. has sued Merck & Co., alleging that Merck obtained a favorable judgment in an earlier case, in which Apotex had sued Merck for patent infringement, by making a number of fraudulent representations to this Court. Apotex has filed an action in which it asks the Court to vacate the judgment in the previous case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) (Count 1) and also asserts state law claims against Merck for common law fraud (Count 2) and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage (Count 3). Merck has moved for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the Court grants Merck's motion.
The resolution of this motion is the latest chapter in Apotex's prolonged attempt to establish the validity of two patents (Nos. 5,573,780 and 5,690,962) that cover a process for making a pharmaceutical compound used to treat high blood pressure. The process involves the following steps:
(i)(a) mixing enalapril maleate with an alkaline sodium compound and at least one other excipient, adding water sufficient to moisten, and mixing to achieve a wet mass, or (b) mixing enalapril maleate with at least one excipient other than an alkaline sodium compound, adding a solution of alkaline sodium compound in water, sufficient to moisten and mixing to achieve a wet mass; thereby to achieve a [virtually complete] reaction without converting the enalapril maleate to a clear solution of enalapril sodium and maleic acid sodium salt in water.
(ii) drying the wet mass, and;
(iii) further processing the dried material into tablets.
See '780 Patent. The Court ruled in January 2000 that the claim required a "virtually complete" reaction of the active ingredient, enalapril maleate. See Apotex Corp. v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 96 C 7375, 2000 WL 97582, *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2000) (Apotex I).
Apotex originally sued Merck for patent infringement in 1996, and after the case was reassigned to this Court's docket in June 1999, we ruled in January 2000 that Merck had infringed the patents but that the patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g). Id. at *5, 8. Section 102(g) provides that an applicant is not entitled to a patent if "before the applicant's invention thereof the invention was made in this country by another who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it."
In the previous case, the parties agreed that Merck invented the allegedly infringing process long before Apotex conceived of the idea. Apotex maintained, however, that its patents were valid because Merck had suppressed or concealed the invention. The Court rejected Apotex's argument, relying on evidence that prior to the date of Apotex's alleged invention, Merck had widely distributed a list of ingredients found in its product and that Merck's vice president of marketing, Brian McLeod, narrated a videotape describing the process during the trial of a lawsuit in Canada. The Court also relied on admissions from Apotex witnesses that "any chemist who knew the ingredients and knew that the process involved adding water to the mix would automatically know that a reaction of the enalapril malete occurred." See id. at *8.
The Federal Circuit affirmed this Court's ruling. See Apotex USA, Inc. v. Merck & Co., 254 F.3d 1031, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Apotex now maintains that the Court's January 2000 ruling as well as the Federal Circuit's June 2001 ruling were obtained by fraud. Specifically, Apotex claims that Merck falsely responded to a discovery request seeking "all facts and documents" supporting its allegations of patent invalidity by stating that "the entire process was publicly discussed in open court by Brian McLeod during the Canadian Litigation" and that "[t]his process has not been abandoned, suppressed, or concealed." Apotex Mem. at 2-3. Apotex also claims that Merck misrepresented facts in its summary judgment brief submitted to this Court and in its brief submitted to the Federal Circuit. It points to Merck's statements in those briefs that "[t]he details of the process were the subject of public testimony in a court action in Canada"; Brian McLeod provided a "step by step explanation of Merck's process"; "one could reverse engineer Merck's process by examining Merck's tablets and by reviewing the ingredient list"; "Merck disagrees that it ever suppressed or concealed the invention"; and Merck's "conduct in the late 1980s and early 1990s belies any intention to keep its process secret." See id.
Apotex contends that Merck admitted the untruth of these statements in 2004 when its key witness in the 2000 case, Dr. Brenner, testified as follows in a different case:
* "The 'lynch pin' [sic] of Merck's process for making stable enalapril tablets was the conversion of enalapril maleate to enalapril sodium, and the key factor in the stabilization of enalapril tablets was the extent to which this reaction went to completion." Apotex Mem at 3.
* A number of factors played important roles in the stabilization process, including "the type of mixing equipment, the duration and temperature of the mixing, the holding time in the mixing equipment after mixing, and the particle size of sodium bicarbonate." Id.
* Merck's Canadian demonstration did not disclose that Merck was converting enalapril maleate to enalapril sodium, the above listed factors, or the need to have a ...