parties. The stipulation and order stated that because “[Bristol-Myers] repeatedly represented and assured Apotex that, notwithstanding any disagreement on the scope or interpretation [of the disputed patents], it had no intention to bring suit against Apotex for infringement,” Apotex stipulated that its complaint be dismissed “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Apotex Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 04 CV 2922, at 3, 2004 WL 3717665 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2004) (“Apotex ”). With this stipulation in hand, Apotex asked the Food and Drug Administration to rule that Apotex’s New York litigation produced a “decision of a court” that triggered Teva’s exclusivity period for generic pravastatin sodium. Cf. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 289 F.3d 775, 780 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). In a letter to Teva and the other generic
holding same and citing cases holding termination of second filers litigation can trigger first filers exclusivity and citing teva i 182 f3d at 1010 holding that request for attorneys fees should not result in a second major litigation recognizing that the state of mind necessary to trigger liability for the wrong is at least as culpable as that required to make punitive damages applicable recognizing special relationship in  1983 cases and citing second circuit doe foster care case