Amgen, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.

Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) appeals an order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denying Amgen’s motion to compel discovery from Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”) in a patent infringement case governed by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, 804 (2010) (amending 42 U.S.C. § 262). Amgen alternatively seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the court to compel discovery.

Because we lack jurisdiction over the district court’s order under the collateral order doctrine and find that Amgen fails to satisfy the prerequisites for mandamus, we dismiss the appeal and deny the writ.

Download Amgen Inc.. v. Hospira Inc.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.

Romag Fasteners, Inc. (“Romag”) owns U.S. Patent No. 5,722,126 (“’126 patent”) on magnetic snap fasteners, which it sells under its registered trademark, ROMAG, U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,095,367 (“’367 trademark”). Romag sued Fossil, Inc. and various retailers (together, “Fossil”) for, inter alia, patent infringement, trademark infringement, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (“district court”). The jury returned a verdict for Romag, finding that Fossil had engaged in patent and trademark infringement and in unfair trade practices. A two-day bench trial resolving other issues followed, after which the district court entered judgment on the jury verdict. This court affirmed the judgment of patent and trademark infringement; other aspects of the judgment were not appealed. See Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., Nos. 2014-1896, 2014-1897, 2017 WL 1906904 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2017) (“Romag II”).

Romag sought attorney’s fees under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 285, Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), and CUTPA. The district court granted fees under the Patent Act and CUTPA, but not under the Lanham Act. Fossil appeals and Romag cross-appeals. We vacate and remand.

Download Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Personal Audio, LLC v. Electronic Frontier Foundation

Personal Audio, LLC appeals the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or “Board”) in inter partes review (IPR) of United States Patent No. 8,112,504 (“the ’504 Patent”). This IPR was instituted on petition of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), described as a non-profit organization that advocates in the public interest of consumers of digital technology. The PTAB held claims 31–35 of the ’504 Patent unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to this appeal.1 On the merits of the appeal, we affirm the judgment of unpatentability.

Download Personal Audio LLC v. Electronic Frontier Foundation

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corp.

Homeland Housewares, LLC (“Homeland”) petitioned the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) for an inter partes review of claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,581,688 (“’688 patent”), which is assigned to Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”). The Board did not construe the key term “settling speed” found in the claims and determined that the claims were not invalid as anticipated by prior art reference U.S. Patent No. 6,609,821 (“Wulf”). Homeland appeals. We reverse.

Download Homeland Housewares LLC v. Whirlpool Corp.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Honeywell International, Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A.

Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”) appeals from a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“the PTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) affirming the Examiner’s rejection, in two merged inter partes reexaminations, of claims 1–26, 31–37, 46–49, 58, 59, 61–68, 70–75, 80, and 81 of U.S. Patent 7,534,366 (“the ’366 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A. De C.V. v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., No. 2015-006430, 2016 WL 1254603 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016) (“Decision”). Because the Board erred in its analysis, and hence its decision, we vacate and remand.

Download Honeywell International Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Regeneron”) appeals from a final judgment of the district court holding U.S. Patent No. 8,502,018 (“’018 patent”) unenforceable because of Regeneron’s inequitable conduct during prosecution. Regeneron also appeals the district court’s construction of several claim terms and determination of indefiniteness. Because we conclude that Regeneron engaged in inequitable conduct during prosecution of the ’018 patent, we affirm.

Download Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merus N.V.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Soft Gel Technologies, Inc. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc.

Soft Gel Technologies, Inc., appeals from three inter partes reexamination decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board’s decisions invalidated numerous claims in each of three related Soft Gel patents for obviousness. We affirm.

Download Soft Gel Technologies Inc. v. Jarrow Formulas Inc.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

NobelBiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, L.L.C.

Global Connect, L.L.C. and T C N, Inc. (collectively, the Defendants) appeal from a jury verdict finding they infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,135,122 and 8,565,399. Because the district court erred in its claim construction, we reverse and remand.

Download NobelBiz Inc. v. Global Connect L.L.C.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

Velcade®. Appellees in Appeal Nos. 15-2066, 16-1008, 16- 1009, 16-1010, 16-1110, 16-1283, and 16-1762 (collectively, “Sandoz”) all filed abbreviated new drug applications (“ANDAs”), admitting infringement and seeking to invalidate various claims of the ’446 Patent. Based on the litigation that ensued, the district court held that claims 20, 31, 49, and 53 of the ’446 Patent were invalid,1 leading to this appeal.

Millennium filed a notice of appeal in Appeal No. 16- 1109 after the district court entered final judgment against Millennium in separate cases arising from ANDAs filed by Apotex and Teva, based on collateral estoppel arising from the district court’s judgment of invalidity of claims 20, 31, 49, and 53 of the ’446 Patent in the Sandoz-Millennium action. We consolidated the appeals in the Sandoz, Apotex, and Teva actions.

On review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the district court erred in the Sandoz litigation and that invalidity was not established. We reverse and enter judgment in favor of Millennium in the Sandoz litigation. We also vacate the district court’s judgment in the action between Millennium, Teva, and Apotex based on our decision in the Sandoz litigation and remand that action for further proceedings.

Download Millenium Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp.

Appellant Genband US LLC sued Metaswitch Networks Corp. and Metaswitch Networks Ltd. (together, Metaswitch) for patent infringement. After a jury found that Metaswitch infringed various claims of several of Genband’s patents, and that the claims at issue had not been proven invalid, Genband sought a permanent injunction. The district court denied the request, concluding that Genband had not established irreparable harm from the infringing activities. That conclusion, however, may have relied on too stringent an interpretation of the requirement, for an injunction, that the allegedly irreparable harm is being caused by the infringement. Based on the district court’s opinion and the briefing in this court, moreover, we cannot be confident of the answer to the causation question under the standard properly governing the inquiry or whether there is any independent ground for finding no irreparable harm or otherwise denying an injunction. Accordingly, we vacate the denial of the injunction and remand for reconsideration.

Download Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.