Intellectual Property News and Reports

Appellant Diamond Coating Technologies, LLC (“Diamond”) sued Appellees Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor Company, Kia Motors America, Inc., Kia Motors Company, Nissan North America, Inc., and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. (collectively, “Appellees”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (“District Court”) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,066,399 and 6,354,008 (together, the “patents-insuit”). The District Court dismissed the actions because it found that agreements between Diamond and Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. (“Sanyo”), the original assignee of the patents-in-suit, did not confer patentee status on Diamond, allowing Diamond to sue Appellees without joining Sanyo. Diamond Coating Techs., LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am., Nos. 8:13-cv-01480-MRP, 8:13-cv-01481-MRP(DFM), 2015 WL 2088892, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2015).

The District Court subsequently held that nunc pro tunc agreements executed by Diamond and Sanyo after its decision in Diamond did not affect its determination. J.A. 12 (order denying reconsideration).

Diamond appeals the District Court’s dismissals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2012). For the reasons provided below, we affirm.

Download Diamond Coating Techs., LLC v. Hyundai Motor

This case arises under the Hatch–Waxman Act,1 and involves Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA’s (collectively, “Glenmark”) 2 proposed generic version of Finacea® Gel, a topical medication for various skin disorders. Glenmark appeals the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s final judgment entered in favor of Intendis GmbH, Intraserv GmbH & Co. KG, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively, “Appellees”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Download Intendis GMBH v. Glenmark Pharma., Inc.

Rembrandt Vision Technologies, Inc. (Rembrandt) appeals from the district court’s judgment that Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVC) does not infringe Rembrandt’s U.S. Patent No. 5,712,327 (’327 patent). Rembrandt challenges the court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law and its denial of Rembrandt’s motion for a new trial. Because the district court correctly granted judgment as a matter of law that JJVC does not infringe, we affirm.

Download Rembrandt Vision Techs., L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.

Bimeda Research & Development Limited (“Bimeda”) appeals a decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, now known as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), in Ex Parte Bimeda Research & Development Limited, No. 2011-010507, 2011 WL 3754635 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 19, 2011) (“Board Opin.”), which affirmed an examiner’s rejection of certain claims introduced in the context of ex parte reexamination of Bimeda’s U.S. Patent No. 6,506,400 (issued Jan. 14, 2003) (“the ’400 patent”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Download In re Bimeda Research Dev. Ltd.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Novozymes A/S and Novozymes North America, Inc. (collectively, “Novozymes”) and Defendants-Appellees DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, Genencor International Wisconsin, Inc., Danisco US Inc., and Danisco USA Inc. (collectively, “DuPont”) are competitors in the market for enzyme preparations used in a variety of commercial applications, including ethanol production. On May 11, 2010, Novozymes brought suit against DuPont in the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 7,713,723 (the “’723 patent”). The ’723 patent claims particular modified enzymes that exhibit improved function and stability under certain conditions. DuPont defended on grounds of noninfringement and invalidity and filed counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’723 patent are invalid for failing to satisfy the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. As litigation progressed, the parties filed several motions for summary judgment. In pertinent part, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Novozymes on the issue of infringement and denied DuPont’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity under the written description and enablement requirements. The case then went to trial before a jury, which concluded that the ’723 patent’s claims are not invalid on enablement or written description grounds and which awarded infringement damages to Novozymes exceeding $18 million. The district court, however, granted DuPont’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law that the claims of the ’723 patent are invalid under § 112 for failure to satisfy the written description requirement. Novozymes now appeals from the district court’s final judgment of invalidity. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Download Novozymes AS v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences, APS

Gehrke & Associates, S.C. is proud to be a Silver Sponsor of the The Fifth Annual International Bioethics Forum: Clones and Chimeras which will be held April 20-21, 2006 at the BioPharmaceutical Technology Center at 5445 East Cheryl Parkway in Madison, WI.

The Forum has been approved for 12 WI CLE credits.

Lisa Gehrke will be a presenter at the "Clones and Chimeras and the Human Quest for Immortality" session.

For more information, please visit the BioPharmaceutical Technology Center Institute's website: www.btci.org