Previous month:
November 2008
Next month:
January 2009

Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex

This suit arose in accordance with the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act, codified at 35 U.S.C. §271(e) and 21 U.S.C. §355(j). The patent at issue is United States Patent No. 4,847,265 (the ’265 patent), owned by Sanofi-Synthelabo and related companies (collectively “Sanofi”), and covers the pharmaceutical product having the common name clopidogrel bisulfate and the brand name Plavix®. The product has the property of inhibiting the aggregation of blood platelets, and is used to treat or prevent blood-thrombotic events such as heart attacks and strokes. We affirm the district court’s ruling sustaining patent validity.

Download
Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Ilor, LLC v. Google

iLOR, LLC (“iLOR”) appeals from a judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 5:07-CV-109, Doc. 71 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 30, 2007), which dismissed the “action” with prejudice after the district court denied iLOR’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief on claim 26 of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,839 (“the ’839 patent”) and granted Google, Inc.’s (“Google’s”) motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of that claim, iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 5:07-CV-109, Doc. 70 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 30, 2007) (“Decision”). As a threshold matter, the finality of the judgment, which controls the scope of our review, is at issue. We conclude that the judgment is not final, and as a result, we exercise jurisdiction only over the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief. On the merits, we conclude that the district court correctly construed the sole claim limitation at issue, and did not abuse its discretion by denying iLOR’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief because noninfringement was undisputed under that construction. Thus, we affirm the district court’s denial of injunctive relief and dismiss the remaining issues raised in this appeal, which relate to matters that remain before the district court.

Download
Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Netcraft Corp. v. eBay

This is a patent infringement case involving internet billing methods. Plaintiff Netcraft Corporation sued eBay, Inc. and PayPal, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) for infringement of two related patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,351,739 (“’739 Patent”) and 6,976,008 (“’008 Patent”). The district court construed a phrase that appears in both patents, “providing a communications link through equipment of the third party,” to require “providing customers with internet access.” Netcraft Corp. v. Ebay, Inc., No. 3:07-CV-00254, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91806, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 10, 2007) (“Claim Construction Order”). The parties agreed that Defendants do not provide internet access to customers, and the district court therefore granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. Because we agree with the district court’s claim construction, we affirm.

Download
Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Mylan Labs

Alphapharm Pty. Ltd. and Genpharm, Inc. (collectively, “Alphapharm”) and Mylan Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and UDL Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “Mylan”) appeal from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 20, 2006, the court granted a motion by plaintiff and patentee Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. and its affiliate Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc. (collectively, “Takeda”) to find the case relating to Hatch-Waxman challenges made by Alphapharm and Mylan in connection with Takeda’s U.S. Patent 4,687,777 (“the ’777 patent”) to be exceptional and to award attorney fees. Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 459 F. Supp. 2d 227 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“September Opinion”). On March 21, 2007, the court quantified the attorney fees, expenses, and expert fees, awarding Takeda $11,400,000 from Mylan and $5,400,000 from Alphapharm, with interest. Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., Nos. 03-8253, 04-1966, 2007 WL 840368 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2007) (“March Opinion”). Because we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that this was an exceptional case because of the misconduct of Mylan and Alphapharm and did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees, we affirm.

Download
Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Spectrum Brands, Energizer Holdings settle lithium battery patent dispute

State Journal staff

Spectrum Brands and Energizer Holdings have reached a settlement in their dispute over lithium battery patents, a document filed in U.S. District Court in Madison on Monday said. Terms were not disclosed, but each party will pay its own legal fees.

Energizer had claimed that Rayovac, a Spectrum Brands subsidiary based in Madison, violated its lithium battery patents. Judge Barbara Crabb issued a preliminary injunction Oct. 31 prohibiting Spectrum Brands from "importing, selling, offering for sale, supporting or distributing primary lithium batteries" until the merits of the claims could be decided.

In Monday's court filing, both sides asked the court to dissolve the injunction.

Full story.

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp

This patent infringement case involves the consequence of silence in the face of a duty to disclose patents in a standards-setting organization (“SSO”). The district court concluded that Qualcomm breached its duty to disclose U.S. Patent Nos. 5,452,104 (“’104 Patent”) and 5,576,767 (“’767 Patent”) to the Joint Video Team (“JVT”) SSO. As a remedy, the district court ordered the ’104 and ’767 Patents (and related patents) unenforceable against the world. Additionally, based on both Qualcomm’s JVT misconduct and its litigation misconduct, the court determined that this was an exceptional case and awarded Broadcom its attorney fees. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s determinations that Qualcomm had a duty to disclose the asserted patents to the JVT, that it breached this duty, and that the JVT misconduct and litigation misconduct were proper bases for the court’s exceptional case determination. Because the scope of the remedy of unenforceability as applying to the world was too broad, however, we vacate the unenforceability judgment and remand with instructions to enter an unenforceability remedy limited in scope to H.264-compliant products. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part (duty to disclose, breach of duty, exceptional case determination), vacate-in-part (unenforceability scope), and remand.

Download

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.