Patent Law Summaries
Page 2 of 3 of Patent Law Summaries » New Settlements and Verdicts < 1 2 3 >
Pfizer Inc., et al. v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., et al.
No. 08cv164,
U.S. District Court District of Delaware (Wilmington), 06/18/2008
Holding: U.S. drug maker Pfizer, Inc. and generics manufacturer Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. of India and certain of its affiliates agreed to settle substantially all their patent litigation worldwide involving Lipitor, the world’s most-prescribed cholesterol-lowering medicine. Under the terms of the agreement, Ranbaxy will have a license to sell generic versions of Lipitor and Caduet in the United States effective November 30, 2011. Caduet is a medicine that combines the active ingredients of Lipitor and Norvasc and treats both high blood pressure and high cholesterol. The lawsuits between Pfizer and Ranbaxy regarding Lipitor and Caduet will be dismissed in specified countries, and Ranbaxy will no longer contest the validity of Pfizer’s patents in these countries, including the United States, according to the agreement. The settlement also resolved all patent litigation with Ranbaxy relating to Accupril in the United States and Viagra in Ecuador.
More...
Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. v. Arthrex, Inc.
Case No. CV 04-029 MO,
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, 06/11/2008
Holding: A jury sitting in a district court in Oregon awarded a total of $14.7 million to Smith & Nephew, Inc. after finding that its rival medical device maker Arthrex, Inc. had infringed its ‘557 patent on a line of suture anchors. Specifically, the jury found that Arthrex indirectly infringed the patent by selling and marketing its own products named PEEK Suture Talk, PEEK PushLock anchors, and Bio PushLock anchors, and that such infringement was willful. The total award consisted of $4.79 million as lost profit damages, and $9.91 million as reasonable royalty damages.
More...
Medtronic Vascular, Inc. et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp., et al.
Case No. 2-06-CV78-TJW,
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, 05/27/2008
Holding: A jury sitting in a Texas district court found that Boston Scientific Corp. infringed three patents owned by Medtronic, Inc., and awarded Medtronic $250 million in damages. Specifically, the jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found that Boston Scientific’s balloon catheter and stent delivery systems infringed two Fitzmaurice patents and one Anderson patent relating to angioplasty catheters and balloons, and awarded $83 million as reasonable royalty for infringement of the Anderson patent, and $167 million as reasonable royalty for infringement of the two Fitzmaurice patents. On the issue that the patent claims were invalid because they were anticipated, obvious, not enabled, or failed to satisfy the written description requirement, the jury likewise found in favor of plaintiffs. In its company announcement, Boston Scientific declared that it would seek a reversal of the adverse verdict, claiming that the jury failed to consider its defenses.
More...
No, 98-20451 JF, 2007 WL 1039290,
N.D.Cal., 01/31/2008
Holding: The jury issued a verdict in favor of plaintiff in this infringement suit for a patent relating to an “information processing system” and “inventory management system” used in the production of integrated circuits. Specifically, the jury found defendant liable for damages in the amount of $31,500,000 for lost sales and $43,200,000 for damages for price erosion, for a total award of $74,700,000.
More...
No. SACV060706(DOC), 2007 WL 2456107,
C.D.Cal., 03/15/2007
Holding: In this patent infringement case, the parties agreed to settle their dispute. The patent in issue involved orthodontic bracket supports. Defendant TP Orthodontics, Inc. agreed to admit that it had infringed plaintiff 3M Innovative Properties Company’s patent, and to cease and desist from further committing acts of infringement. Defendant likewise agreed not to challenge the validity of patent in issue during its life. The parties however did not disclose whether there was any monetary consideration involved in the settlement.
More...
Page 2 of 3 of Patent Law Summaries » New Settlements and Verdicts < 1 2 3 >
Patent Law Commentaries
Following are Patent Law Commentaries elaborating on the significance of the most important of the Patent Law Summaries.
Page 2 of 2 of Patent Law Commentaries < 1 2
Tafas v. Dudas, et al.
Posted: 05/12/2008
Commentary: In an effort to attack its notorious backlog, the USPTO enacted a group of rule changes that placed limits on, among other things, the number of claims a patent applicant could include and the number of times an applicant could amend and continue his application. Traditionally, patent applicants could take unlimited bites at the apple in their pursuit of their patent.
In Tafas, the court struck down the rule changes as null and void, and exceeding the scope of the USPTO’s authority. While the Office has the power to enact procedural rules regarding the process, it cannot enact substantive rules – these rules are substantive since they dramatically alter existing policy and the rights and obligations of patent applicants.
More...
Related summary: USPTO Rules Are Void For Being Contrary to Law, VA District Court Declares
McKesson Information Solutions, Inc. v. Bridge Medical, Inc.
Posted: 01/18/2008
Commentary: The decision in McKesson Information Solutions Inc. v. Bridge Medical Inc., 487 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 2007), has been referred to by many as “frightening,” “burdensome,” and “a whopper.” Indeed, the decision places a high burden on patent prosecutors to disclose essentially every action in any related co-pending application. The failure to do so may result in a declaration that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
More...
Related summary: Federal Circuit Affirms Inequitable Conduct Ruling in McKesson Information Solutions Suit
Voda v. Cordis Corp.
Posted: 07/13/2007
Commentary: Despite what it called a "harmonizing trend" among the world's patent courts, the Federal Circuit chose not to create a more unified global system of enforcing patents worldwide. Instead, the court effectively eliminated a district court's ability to assert supplemental jurisdiction over claims of foreign patent infringement, forcing patent holders to seek enforcement in parallel suits in courts all over the world.
More...
Related summary: District Court Has No Jurisdiction over Foreign Patent Claims, Federal Circuit Holds in Voda v. Cordis
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Posted: 05/15/2007
Commentary: The central issue that faced this court is how to determine if an invention is truly innovative or is just the result of linking together prior inventions in a way that was inevitable or an apparent next step. The Supreme Court emphasized flexibility in making that determination, whereas the Federal Circuit had been choosing predictability instead. The Court held that the Federal Circuit had too rigidly applied its “teaching, suggestion, motivation” test, under which a patent claim is only invalidated for obviousness if prior art contains some motivation or suggestion to combine the prior art teaching. This application resulted in erroneously finding that the patent at issue was not invalid for obviousness.
More...
Related summary: KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Page 2 of 2 of Patent Law Commentaries < 1 2
