Previous month:
August 2009
Next month:
October 2009

In Re '318 Patent Infringement Litigation

Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V., Janssen L.P., and Synaptech, Inc. (“Janssen”), appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. After a bench trial, the district court determined that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 4,663,318 (“the ’318 patent”) were invalid for lack of enablement. In re ’318 Patent Infringement Litig., 578 F. Supp. 2d 711, 737 (D. Del. 2008). We affirm.

Download In Re '318 Patent Infringement Litigation

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

Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., and Sandoz, Inc. appeal from the grant, by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, of AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca UK Limited’s motion for summary judgment of no inequitable conduct. The district court ruled that the Appellants had not presented evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that, in prosecution of the subject patent application in the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), AstraZeneca made a misrepresentation of material fact or an omission of material fact, with intent to deceive or mislead the patent examiner into granting the patent. We affirm the district court’s ruling.

Download Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

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

Kara Tech., Inc. v. Stamps.com

Kara Technology (Kara) appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, following a jury trial, that Stamps.com did not infringe various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,505,179 (the ’179 patent) and 6,735,575 (the ’575 patent) with its Pre-Version 5 (Pre-V5) or Versions 5 and later (V5) products. Kara also appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Stamps.com on its breach of contract claim. The court ruled, as a matter of law, that Stamps.com did not breach its nondisclosure agreement (NDA) with Kara. For its part, Stamps.com cross appeals the determination of the district court that it was not a prevailing party in the litigation, and that it thus was not entitled to costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 or attorney’s fees under the NDA. For the following reasons, we vacate-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand.

Download Kara Tech., Inc. v. Stamps.com

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

In re Lister

Dr. Richard Lister appeals from a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) that affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 21-25 of his application under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Because the record does not contain sufficient evidence that the prior art reference relied upon by the Board was publicly accessible more than one year prior to the date on which Dr. Lister filed his patent application, we vacate and remand.

Download In re Lister

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

Edwards Lifesciences Llc. v. Cook, Inc.

Edwards Lifesciences LLC and Endogad Research PTY Limited (collectively, “Edwards”) appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment of noninfringement of several claims of U.S. Patents 6,582,458 (“the ’458 patent”); 6,613,073 (“the ’073 patent”); 6,685,736 (“the ’736 patent”); and 6,689,158 (“the ’158 patent”). See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook, No. C 03-03817 JSW, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 55634 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2007) (“Claim Construction Order”); Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook, No. C 03-03817 JSW, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21248 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2008) (“Order Granting Cook Summary Judgment”); Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook, No. C 03-03817 JSW, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 70130 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2008) (“Order Granting Gore Summary Judgment”). Because the court correctly construed certain claim terms and correctly determined that Cook Incorporated’s and W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.’s (collectively, “Appellees’”) devices did not infringe under those constructions, we affirm.

Download Edwards Lifesciences Llc. v. Cook, Inc.

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

AsymmetRx, Inc. v. Biocare Med., Llc.

AsymmetRx, Inc. (“AsymmetRx”) appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granting summary judgment in favor of Biocare Medical, LLC (“Biocare”). AsymmetRx, Inc. v. Biocare Med. LLC, 578 F. Supp. 2d 333 (D. Mass. 2008). Because we conclude that AsymmetRx does not have statutory standing to pursue this action absent the participation of the President and Fellows of Harvard College (“Harvard”), we vacate and remand.

Download AsymmetRx, Inc. v. Biocare Med., Llc.
Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc.

This case involves alleged infringement by Basic Holding (“Basic”) of a patent and alleged trademark held by Vita-Mix Corporation (“Vita-Mix”). The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment of no direct infringement, no inducement of infringement, no contributory infringement, and no trademark infringement in favor of Basic. The court also granted summary judgment of no invalidity based on anticipation, obviousness, or lack of enablement, no inequitable conduct, and no laches in favor of Vita-Mix. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate and remand the district court’s judgment of no direct infringement. We affirm the judgments of no inducement, no contributory infringement, and no trademark infringement. We vacate and remand the judgments of no invalidity for anticipation, obviousness, or lack of enablement. We affirm the judgments of no inequitable conduct and no laches.

Download Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc.

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

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (“Prometheus”) appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patents 6,355,623 (“the ’623 patent”) and 6,680,302 (“the ’302 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., No. 04-CV-1200, 2008 WL 878910 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2008) (“Invalidity Opinion”). Because the district court erred as a matter of law in finding the asserted claims to be drawn to non-statutory subject matter, we reverse.

Download Prometheus Lab., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative

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

Amgen, Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd.

This is a patent case. Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,441,868 (“the ’868 patent”), 5,547,933 (“the ’933 patent”), 5,618,698 (“the ’698 patent”), 5,756,349 (“the ’349 patent”), and 5,955,422 (“the ’422 patent”). The patents relate to the production of the protein erythropoietin (“EPO”) using recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) technology. All five patents share a common specification and descend from Application No. 06/675,298 (“the ’298 application”), which issued as now-expired U.S. Patent No. 4,703,008 (“the ’008 patent”).

In November of 2005, Amgen brought a declaratory judgment action against F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd, Roche Diagnostics GMBH, and Hoffman-La Roche Inc. (“Roche”) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that Roche’s product, MIRCERA®, would infringe Amgen’s five patents if imported into the United States. Roche responded with affirmative defenses and counterclaims that Amgen’s asserted patents were invalid and not infringed. In October of 2008, following rulings of summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), and a jury trial, the court entered judgment that the ’868, ’933, ’698, and ’422 patents were infringed and not invalid, and that the ’349 patent was neither invalid nor infringed. Amgen, Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., No. 05-12237-WGY, slip op. at 1–2 (D. Mass. Oct. 17, 2008) (“Final Judgment”). Accordingly, the court granted Amgen declaratory relief and permanently enjoined Roche from marketing MIRCERA® in the United States. Id.


Roche appeals from several rulings of the court. Specifically, Roche challenges the court’s rulings that none of the claims-in-suit were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting, Amgen, Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 581 F. Supp. 2d 160, 173, 186, 192 (D. Mass. 2008); and that claim 1 of the ’422 patent was neither anticipated nor indefinite and infringed, id. at 194, 198, 204. Roche also challenges the court’s rulings sustaining the jury’s verdict that claims 3, 7, and 8 of the ’933 patent were neither anticipated nor indefinite; and that claims 3, 7, and 8 of the ’933 patent, claims 1 and 2 of the ’868 patent, and claims 6–9 of the ’698 patent were literally infringed.
Amgen cross-appeals from the court’s rulings that claim 7 of the ’349 patent and claims 9, 11, and 14 of the ’933 patent were not infringed. Amgen also cross-appeals from the court’s ruling vacating the jury’s verdict that claim 12 of the ’933 patent was infringed under the doctrine of equivalents (“DOE”). Id. at 205.
We vacate the court’s grant of summary judgment and of JMOL to Amgen of no invalidity for obviousness-type double patenting of claims 3, 7, and 8 of the ’933 patent; claim 1 of the ’422 patent; and claim 7 of the ’349 patent. We therefore remand to the district court for an obviousness-type double patenting analysis of those claims in light of this opinion. We also vacate the court’s grant of JMOL to Roche of non-infringement of claim 7 of the ’349 patent and remand to the district for a new trial on infringement of that claim. We affirm the court’s judgment in all other respects.

Download Amgen, Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd.

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

Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.

Microsoft Corporation appeals the denial of post-trial motions concerning a jury verdict that U.S. Patent No. 4,763,356 (the “Day patent”) was not invalid and that Microsoft indirectly infringed the Day patent. Microsoft also appeals the $357,693,056.18 jury award to Lucent Technologies, Inc. for Microsoft’s infringement of the Day patent. Because the validity and infringement decisions were not contrary to law and supported by substantial evidence, we affirm. Because the damages calculation lacked sufficient evidentiary support, we vacate and remand that portion of the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Download Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.

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