Tagged: Patent Litigation
We previously reported on developments in various United States Courts of Appeal decisions concerning reverse payments in Hatch-Waxman litigation settlements – that is, payments made by branded pharmaceutical patent holders to generic challengers to postpone market entry of the generic product. Most recently, as we reported here, the Third Circuit in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig. bucked prior holdings of the Eleventh, Second, and Federal Circuits, ruling that a reverse payment is prima facie evidence of an antitrust violation and, therefore, serves as evidence of unreasonable restraints of trade. In light of the Third Circuit’s divergent decision from other circuit precedent, many predicted a subsequent Petition for Certiorari.
In Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., a recent Eastern District of Texas decision, Chief District Judge Leonard Davis provided guidance on the application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 (“Rule 20”) joinder and Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 (“Rule 42”) consolidation in patent infringement cases post-enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). Norman IP brought suit against Lexmark and others on September 15, 2011, one day before the AIA was signed into law. Norman IP later added an additional 23 defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for improper joinder or to sever, and Norman IP alternatively requested that any severed cases be consolidated under Rule 42. The Court granted defendants’ motion to sever and issued an order consolidating the cases for pretrial issues excluding venue.
In a prior blog, we reported that the Supreme Court had granted certiorari in Already, LLC dba Yums v. Nike, Inc., No. 11-982, to an appeal from the Second Circuit’s decision affirming the Southern District of New York’s holding that a covenant not to sue entered in a trademark dispute ended the case and controversy between the parties.
In WM. Wrigley Jr. v. Cadbury Adams USA, a recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision related to chewing gum patents, Wrigley brought suit against Cadbury for infringement of its U.S. Patent Number 6,627,233 (“the ‘233 patent”) claiming a chewing gum including a combination of menthol and a physiological cooling agent, WS-23. Cadbury counterclaimed against Wrigley for infringement of Cadbury’s U.S. Patent Number 5,009,893 (“the ‘893 patent”) claiming a chewing gum including menthol and a similar cooling agent entitled WS-3.
As the summer rolls along, IP practitioners still await the Federal Circuit’s decisions in the en banc rehearings of Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and McKesson Techs. Inc. v. Epic Sys. Corp., 98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2011), which will address liability among multiple step performers accused of patent infringement.
We previously reported on the new 35 U.S.C. § 299 of the America Invents Act. This statute aims, inter alia, to reduce the ability of a patent owner to join multiple, unrelated defendants in a single action, which is a tactic often employed by non-practicing entities (“NPEs”), sometimes referred to as “patent trolls,” who press defendants for nuisance value settlements.
According to a press release from the Governor’s office, a recent review issued by Business Facilities magazine reported that New Jersey jumped eight positions to rank second for biotechnology strength among U.S. states. Some of the factors cited as responsible for this improvement include increases in R&D tax credits (from 50% to 100%) and the adoption of a new single sales factor formula for corporate tax liability, which will reduce company costs.
As we previously reported, the Smith-Leahy America Invents Act (“AIA”) prohibits plaintiff patent owners from joining multiple, unrelated defendants in a single action. An unintended, yet significant, consequence of this is that patent holders must bring serial litigations when more than one unrelated infringer is implicated. And, with the added possibility of declaratory judgment actions commenced in different venues, there is a real potential to have multiple cases — involving the same patent(s) — scattered across different judicial districts. Beyond the obvious resource concerns, this scenario may increase the risk of conflicting rulings.
Gibbons P.C. is again proud to announce a two-day program for Pharmaceutical Management at the Rutgers University Blanche and Irwin Lerner Center for Pharmaceutical Studies in Newark, NJ. The program, which is open to the public, includes in-depth presentations relating to topics including intellectual property, regulatory, financial and marketing issues relating to the pharmaceutical industry, as well as drug development and the role of biotechnology in pharmaceutical development.
Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) ranks Gibbons among the top IP law firms and practitioners worldwide in its guide – IAM Patent Litigation 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Litigators. David E. De Lorenzi, Chair of the Gibbons Intellectual Property Department, and Sheila F. McShane, a Director in the Department, were two of only five intellectual property lawyers featured as leading individuals in this practice.
