Delaware Intellectual Property Law Update
October 12, 2017
Publication| Intellectual Property
Welcome to the latest edition of the Richards, Layton & Finger Intellectual Property Law Update. As always, if you have questions about any of the decisions listed below or the District of Delaware in general, please let us know.
Jury Awards $70 Million in Biosimilar Patent Suit
On September 22, 2017, a Delaware jury awarded Richards Layton client Amgen, Inc. $70 million in damages against defendant Hospira, Inc. The trial was one of the first to test the rules of developing biosimilars.
Chief Judge Stark Decides Four Motions for Summary Judgment on a Variety of Patent Issues
In Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 13-1632-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 29, 2017), Chief Judge Stark decided four summary judgment motions on various issues. This group of six patent infringement actions involved plaintiffs Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II (collectively, “IV”), and defendants T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., Nextel Operations, Inc., Sprint Spectrum L.P., Boost Mobile, LLC, Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., and United States Cellular Corporation.
Read More >>
Chief Judge Stark Grants Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue Following TC Heartland
In Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific SciMed, Inc. v. Cook Group Incorporated and Cook Medical LLC, C.A. No. 15-980-LPS-CJB, Chief Judge Stark granted the defendants’ motion to transfer venue, holding that the defendants did not have a regular and established place of business in Delaware.
Read More >>
Chief Judge Stark Denies Defendants’ Motion to Strike
In Cosmo Technologies Limited v. Lupin Ltd., C.A. No. 15-669-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 14, 2017), Chief Judge Stark denied the defendants’ motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ expert reports. The defendants argued that they were not on notice of the information provided in the expert reports, including the expert’s visual observations, and that the expert reports went beyond the plaintiffs’ initial contentions.
Read More >>
Judge Andrews Denies Motion to Dismiss
In Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., C.A. No. 16-453-RGA (D. Del Aug. 29, 2017), Judge Andrews denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s patent infringement claims. In their motion to dismiss, the defendants argued that all claims of the patents at issue were invalid for lack of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims relate to a broadcast channel for a subset of computers that are part of a larger network.
Read More >>
Chief Judge Stark Clarifies Requirements for Proper Venue in Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Permits Venue Discovery
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Pfizer v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., C.A. No. 17-379-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2017), Chief Judge Stark considered a motion to dismiss for improper venue. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“MPI”) was sued by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Pfizer Co. (collectively, “BMS”) for patent infringement after its ANDA filing for a generic version of the drug Eliquis. Ultimately, Judge Stark denied MPI’s motion to dismiss without prejudice because the Court could not reach a decision on whether venue was proper based on the facts currently available. The Court granted limited discovery for BMS to determine facts relevant to the venue analysis.
Read More >>
Chief Judge Stark Denies Request for Enhanced Damages
In Indenix Pharmaceutical LLC and Universita Degli Studi di Cagliari v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., C.A. No. 14-846-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 22, 2017), Chief Judge Stark considered a motion for enhanced damages filed by Indenix Pharmaceuticals LLC after a jury found Gilead Sciences, Inc. liable for infringement. The jury awarded Indenix $2.54 billion, and the Court awarded pre-judgment interest. In addition, the jury also found Gilead’s infringement was willful. The finding of willful infringement opened the door for Judge Stark to enhance damages.
Read More >>