Case 1:11-cv PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 1 of 11
|
|
- Noah Nicholson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 1:11-cv PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 1 of 11 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: October 14, 2011 ABBOTT LABROTORIES and : ABBOTT BIOTECHNOLOGY LIMITED : : Plaintiffs, : : - against - : 11 Civ (PAC) : THE MATHILDA AND TERENCE KENNEDY : ORDER INSTITUTE OF RHEUMATOLOGY TRUST, : : Defendant. : X HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs Abbott Laboratories and Abbott Biotechnology Ltd. ( Plaintiffs ) seek a declaratory judgment that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,846,442 (the 442 patent ) issued to Defendant The Mathilda and Terence Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust ( Defendant ) are invalid. Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant submits that there is no case or controversy because Defendant cannot sue Plaintiffs for patent infringement and because the dispute is subject to mandatory arbitration. Defendant s motion to dismiss is DENIED. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs market HUMIRA, an FDA approved drug used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases associated with an overabundance of Tumor Necrosis Factor α ( TNF-a ), a protein that plays a role in the human body s inflammatory response. (See Compl. 4, 29.) Plaintiffs have been marketing and selling HUMIRA since 2003, and have no plans to cease such activities. (Id. 10.)
2 Case 1:11-cv PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 2 of 11 Defendant is the owner of certain U.S. Patents, including Patent No. 6,270,766 (the 766 patent ). (Id. 5, 10.) On January 1, 1992, Defendant entered into a licensing agreement with Centocor, Inc. (now Centocor Ortho Biotech Inc., Centocor ), which gives Centocor the right to sublicense Defendant s patent rights. (Id. 20.) On December 23, 2002, Centocor entered into a sublicensing agreement with Plaintiffs for Defendant s 766 patent and related intellectual property. (Id.) On July 29, 2004, Centocor and Defendant amended their licensing agreement, so that Plaintiffs could pay royalties directly to Defendant. (Id. 21.) Plaintiffs have to pay royalties under Defendant s 766 patent whenever they market the use of HUMIRA with methotrexate. ( See id. 19.) Plaintiffs have paid royalties on Defendant s 766 patent for such marketing of HUMIRA for years. (Id. 8.) They anticipated that their obligations would end upon the expiration of the 766 patent in October (Id. 8.) On December 7, 2010, Defendant s 442 patent was issued. ( Id. 35.) Next month, on January 26, 2011, Defendant advised Plaintiffs of the issuance of its 442 patent and that Abbott will owe royalties to Kennedy under the 442 patent until August 21, (Id. 9.) Plaintiffs allege that the 442 patent is identical in all respects to the 766 patent, except for its claims, and therefore is invalid for failing to meet the requirements of patentability under the federal patent laws, including for obviousness-type double patenting over the 766 patent. ( Id. 33, 45.) The Defendant has previously enforced it patents by instituting suits against third parties for patent infringement. ( Id. 12.) Defendant also previously instituted an arbitration proceeding against Plaintiffs concerning their payment of royalties under the 766 patent. (Id. 22.) 2
3 Case 1:11-cv PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 3 of 11 On April 13, 2011, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant, seeking a declaratory judgment that Defendant s 442 patent is invalid and that Plaintiffs do not and will not owe royalties to Defendant for that patent. (Id. 1-2.) LEGAL STANDARD The Declaratory Judgment Act provides that, [i]n a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction... any court of the United States... may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. 28. U.S.C. 2201(a). The availability of declaratory relief is limited to cases or controversies, as provided in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, (Fed. Cir. 2008). A court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act only if the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007) (quoting Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941)). 1 In patent cases, declaratory judgment jurisdiction exists where a patentee asserts rights under a patent based on certain identified ongoing or planned activity of another party, and where that party contends that it has the right to engage in the accused activity without license. Sandisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 480 F.3d 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A plaintiff 1 Prior to MedImmune, a declaratory judgment plaintiff was required to demonstrate (1) conduct by the declaratory judgment defendant that created a reasonable apprehension of suit and (2) present activity by the declaratory judgment plaintiff that could constitute infringement or meaningful preparation to conduct potentially infringing activity. Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 537 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Supreme Court rejected the first prong as unduly restrictive in MedImmune. MedImmune, 549 U.S Courts are now required to look at all the circumstances to determine whether a justiciable Article III controversy exists. Cat Tech LLC, 528 F.3d at
4 Case 1:11-cv PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 4 of 11 must have taken significant, concrete steps towards conducting the infringing activity, such that the dispute is immediate and real. Cat Tech LLC, 528 F.3d at Finally, the Declaratory Judgment Act has long been understood to confer on federal courts unique and substantial discretion in deciding whether to declare the rights of litigants. MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 136 (quoting Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286 (1995)). DISCUSSION A. An Actual Controversy Exists Plaintiffs rely primarily on the Supreme Court s recent decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007). In MedImmune, a license holder sent a letter to its licensee stating that it believed the licensee would owe royalties on its new patent under their licensing agreement. Id. at 121. The licensee believed that the new patent was invalid and unenforceable; and interpreted the letter as a threat to enjoin sales if it did not pay royalties. Id. at The licensee paid royalties under protest and instituted a declaratory judgment action. Id. The Supreme Court noted that but for petitioner s continuing to make royalty payments, nothing about the dispute would render it unfit for judicial resolution. Id. at 128. The Court considered whether a case or controversy, within the meaning of Article III, can arise where the licensee s own acts eliminate the imminent threat of harm. Id. The Court reasoned that one should not have to bet the farm, or... risk treble damages and the loss of... business before seeking a declaration of its actively contested legal rights. Id. at 134. The Supreme Court thus held that a patent licensee is not required, insofar as Article III is concerned, to break or terminate its [ ] licensing agreement before seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court that the underlying patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. Id. at
5 Case 1:11-cv PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 5 of 11 Plaintiffs argue that an actual controversy exists here. Defendant s letter to Plaintiffs states that they will owe royalties on Defendant s 442 patent until 2018, six years after the expiration of the 766 patent. (See Maldonado Decl. Ex. 4.) Plaintiffs believe that Defendant s 442 patent is invalid and unenforceable, but have not terminated or breached their sublicensing agreement and, thus, by their own acts (or lack thereof), have eliminated the risk that Defendant could sue Plaintiffs for patent infringement. Defendant argues that because it cannot sue Plaintiffs for patent infringement which it cannot do so long as Plaintiffs continue to pay royalties under their sublicense agreement that no actual controversy exists; the controversy is hypothetical. In MedImmune, however, the Supreme Court held that an actual controversy warranting declaratory judgment jurisdiction can exist, even though Plaintiffs do not terminate or breach their sublicensing agreement. MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 137. The Defendant raises a barrage of arguments, attempting to distinguish the present case from MedImmune and to argue that Defendant s January 26, 2011 letter does not mean what it says. The Court considers each in turn, but rejects all of them. There is an actual controversy arising out of the Defendant s January 2011 letter and Plaintiffs are well within their rights in seeking a declaratory judgment. First, Defendant contends that neither its letter bringing the 442 patent to Plaintiffs attention, nor its prior enforcement actions, create a reasonable apprehension of an infringement suit. (Def. Br. 8-9, ) 2 A defendant s objective words and actions that can be reasonably 2 In making its argument, Defendant cites Sirius Satellite Research Inc. v. Acacia Research Corp., No. 05 Civ. 7495(PAC), 2006 WL , at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2006), where this Court dismissed a declaratory judgment suit because the declaratory judgment defendant s conduct did not create a reasonable apprehension of imminent litigation. This Court s analysis in Sirius Satellite, however, was governed by the old reasonable apprehension test see supra n.1; the Supreme Court subsequently held that this test was unduly restrictive. MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 118. The Court s prior opinion is not correct and cannot be applied here. 5
6 Case 1:11-cv PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 6 of 11 inferred as demonstrating intent to enforce a patent can create declaratory judgment jurisdiction. Hewlett-Packard v. Acceleron LLC, 587 F.3d 1358, 1360, (Fed. Cir. 2009) (reversing a decision granting a motion to dismiss because the patent owner s letter calling the plaintiff s attention to its patent and requesting an opportunity to discuss reflected an implicit assertion of the patent owner s rights since it is implausible... to expect that a competent lawyer drafting such a letter would explicitly allege infringement ). 3 Even an unequivocal statement that a party does not intend to sue does not moot the actual controversy created by the party s extrajudicial patent enforcement acts. Sandisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 480 F.3d 1372, (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, Defendant s letter definitively stated that Abbott will owe royalties to Kennedy on U.S. sales of Humira through August 21, (Maldonado Decl. Ex. 4 (emphasis added).) Defendant s letter puts Plaintiffs on notice that it intends to enforce its new patent and expects Plaintiffs to continue paying royalties on their existing sublicensing agreement for another six years. The Defendant s litigation history is also a factor to be considered. See Hewlett-Packard, 587 F.3d at 1364 n.1. Here, Defendant has a history of enforcing its patent rights against third parties. In light of the totality of the circumstances, it is objectively reasonable to believe that the Defendant intends to enforce its patent rights over its 442 patent. Second, the Defendant contends that there is no actual controversy because Plaintiffs hold an irrevocable sublicense, which Defendant cannot terminate. (Def. Br. 9-12; Def. Reply 4-5.) Defendant argues that the sublicense agreement provides, in effect, a covenant not to sue 3 While the Supreme Court rejected the reasonable apprehension of suit test as the sole test for jurisdiction,.... proving a reasonable apprehension of suit is one of multiple ways that a declaratory judgment plaintiff can satisfy the more general all-the-circumstances test to establish that an action presents a justiciable Article III controversy. Prasco, LLC, 537 F.3d at
7 Case 1:11-cv PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 7 of 11 Plaintiffs and notes that it cannot terminate Plaintiffs sublicensing agreement with Centocor. (Id. at 10 (citing Hilgraeve Corp. v. Symantec Corp., 265 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed Cir. 2001) (holding that licenses are considered as nothing more than a promise by the licensor not to sue the licensee )).) According to Defendant, this makes any controversy purely hypothetical. (Id. 9-12; Def. Reply 6-8.) Plaintiffs, however, have the ability to terminate their sublicense agreement with Centocor at-will, on thirty-day notice. (See Maldonado Decl. Ex ). If Plaintiffs were to terminate their sublicense agreement, they could challenge the validity of Defendant s 442 patent and Defendant could sue Plaintiffs for patent infringement for their marketing of the use of HUMIRA with methotrexate. 4 While the situation in MedImmune involved a licensor and a licensee and this case involves a patent owner and sublicense holders, the proposition that a declaratory plaintiff is not required to break or terminate its [ ] licensing agreement before seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court that the underlying patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed is just as applicable here. See MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 137. Third, the Defendant argues that any dispute is subject to the mandatory arbitration provision. (Def. Br ) The mandatory arbitration provision governs disputes arising under or regarding the interpretation of [the sublicensing] Agreement (Maldonado Decl. Ex ), not patent validity. The sublicensing agreement contains a separate provision stating that the enforceability or validity of a patent is subject to a holding by a governmental agency or a 4 Even if the Plaintiffs were to breach their sublicensing agreement, rather than terminate their agreement, they could still face an enforcement action by Defendant. While Defendant is not in privity with Plaintiff, U.S. District Court Judge Chin has already determined that Defendant is the intended third-party beneficiary of the [2002] Centocor-Abbott Agreement. Centocor, Inc. v. The Kennedy Instit. Of Rheumatology, No. 08 cv. 8824, 2008 WL , at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2008). The Defendant, as the third-party beneficiary, can enforce the sublicensing agreement. See ConEd v. Northeast Utilities, 426 F.3d 524, 527 (2d Cir. 2005) ( Under New York law, a contractual promise can be enforced by a non-party who is an intended third-party beneficiary of that promise. ). 7
8 Case 1:11-cv PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 8 of 11 court of competent jurisdiction. (Id ) 5 The sublicensing agreement here contemplates that challenges to a patent s validity will be raised before a governmental agency or a court of competent jurisdiction, not an arbitration panel. Arbitration assumes patent validity and resolves disputes concerning the interpretation of the sublicensing agreement. The Court finds that the arbitration provision does not weigh against the Court s exercise of jurisdiction in this action. Finally, Defendant contends that because Centocor cannot challenge the validity of Defendant s patents under the terms of the Defendant/Centocor agreement, that Plaintiffs do not have the right to do so. (Def. Reply 5.) As discussed above, however, the sublicensing agreement contemplates that patents can be found invalid and, in any event, public policy weighs in favor of allowing a party to challenge the validity of a patent, even if the party s contract is non-terminable or limits the party s ability to argue invalidity, because such challenges promote full and free competition in the use of ideas. See Rates Tech. Inc. v. Speakeasy, Inc., No. 10 Civ (DLC), 2011 WL , at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2011) ( Where, as here, an agreement purports to deprive a licensee of any opportunity to challenge validity, it directly contravenes the important public interest in permitting full and free competition in the use of ideas. ) (quoting Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 670 (1969)). The balance of Defendant s arguments all bear the same deficiencies. In sum, the Court finds that an actual controversy exists between the parties. B. The Controversy Is Sufficiently Immediate and Real MedImmune did not change the bedrock rule that a case or controversy must be based on a real and immediate injury or threat of future injury that is caused by the defendants The fact that Plaintiffs might be able to raise this challenge before a governmental agency, rather than in this declaratory judgment action, does not make it inappropriate for them to have done so. 8
9 Case 1:11-cv PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 9 of 11 Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 537 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis removed). 1. Immediacy [A]lthough a party need not have engaged in the actual manufacture or sale of a potentially infringing product to obtain a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, there must be a showing of meaningful preparation for making or using that product. Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, (Fed. Cir. 2008). In this case, Plaintiffs have been marketing the use of HUMIRA with methotrexate the potentially infringing activity for years. Plaintiffs declaratory judgment action, however, does not challenge its obligation to pay royalties under the 766 patent through October Defendant argues that since any controversy regarding Plaintiffs obligations under Defendant s 442 patent will not arise until October 2012, at the earliest, that the conflict is not sufficiently immediate. (See Def. Br , ) The fact that Plaintiffs instituted this declaratory judgment action over a year before they would owe royalties on the 442 patent is not dispositive. It is probab[le], indeed virtually certain, that the [disputed patent] will apply to the plaintiffs in October 2012, if it is not found to be invalid. See Thomas More Law Ctr. v. Obama, No , 2011 WL , at *4-6 (6th Cir. June 29, 2011) (affirming a finding of immediacy to warrant declaratory judgment jurisdiction even though the action was raised three and one-half years before the effective date of the challenged law, which ensured that the federal judiciary would be able to reach a considered decision on the merits as opposed to [a] rushed interim decision). The Court finds that the immediacy requirement is satisfied. 9
10 Case 1:11-cv PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 10 of Reality In the context of patent litigation, the reality requirement is often related to the extent to which the technology in question is substantially fixed as opposed to fluid and indeterminate at the time declaratory relief is sought. Cat Tech LLC, 528 F.3d at 882. The Defendant argues that Plaintiffs marketing of HUMIRA is not substantially fixed by referring to Wall Street Journal article that purportedly suggests that Plaintiffs are planning changes for HUMIRA. (Def. Br ) Plaintiffs have been marketing the use of HUMIRA with methotrexate for years, and have stated that they have no plans to cease such activities. (Compl. 10.) The Court will not consider newspaper articles to rebut the complaint; the well pleaded allegations in the complaint control. The Court finds no reason to believe Plaintiffs will cease marketing the use of HUMIRA with methotrexate. Accordingly, the reality requirement is met. C. The Court s Discretion While a district court is given the discretion, in declaratory judgment actions, to dismiss the case, there are boundaries to that discretion. Sandisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 480 F.3d 1372, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When there is an actual controversy and a declaratory judgment would settle the legal relations in dispute and afford relief from uncertainty or insecurity, in the usual circumstance the declaratory judgment is not subject to dismissal. Id. (quoting Genentech v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931, 937 (Fed. Cir.1993).) Plaintiffs should not be required to terminate its sublicensing agreement or otherwise bet the farm, MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 134, before seeking a ruling on the validity of Defendant s 442 patent. In the circumstances presented here it would be an abuse of the Court s discretion to dismiss this case. 10
11 Case 1:11-cv PAC Document 25 Filed 10/14/11 Page 11 of 11
Fish & Richardson Declaratory Judgment Post-Medimmune Presentation
Fish & Richardson Declaratory Judgment Post-Medimmune Presentation Where are we now? Jan. 9, 2007 Supreme Court decides MedImmune v. Genentech March 26, 2007 Federal Circuit decides SanDisk v. STMicroelectronics
More informationThe Changing Landscape of Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction: MedImmune v. Genentech and its Federal Circuit Progeny
The Changing Landscape of Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction: MedImmune v. Genentech and its Federal Circuit Progeny Where are we now? Jan. 9, 2007 Supreme Court decides MedImmune v. Genentech March 26,
More informationLife Sciences Industry Perspective on Declaratory Judgment Actions and Licensing Post-MedImmune. Roadmap for Presentation
Life Sciences Industry Perspective on Declaratory Judgment Actions and Licensing Post-MedImmune MedImmune: R. Brian McCaslin, Esq. Christopher Verni, Esq. March 9, 2009 clients but may be representative
More informationUnited States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Order Form (01/2005) United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge Blanche M. Manning Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge CASE NUMBER 06
More informationLicense Agreements and Litigation: Protecting Your Assets and Revenue Streams in the High-Tech and Life Science Industries
License Agreements and Litigation: Protecting Your Assets and Revenue Streams in the High-Tech and Life Science Industries January 21, 2010 *These materials represent our preliminary analysis based on
More informationA Nonrepudiating Patent Licensee s Right To Seek Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity or Noninfringement of the Licensed Patent: MedImmune v.
Order Code RL34156 A Nonrepudiating Patent Licensee s Right To Seek Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity or Noninfringement of the Licensed Patent: MedImmune v. Genentech August 30, 2007 Brian T. Yeh Legislative
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE POSITEC USA INC., and POSITEC USA INC., Plaintiffs, C.A. No. 05-890 GMS v. MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM I.
More informationPOST-MEDIMMUNE DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT JURISDICTION
POST-MEDIMMUNE DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT JURISDICTION The Federal Circuit's Recent SanDisk and Teva Pharmaceuticals Decisions On March 26 and 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., THROUGH ITS GATE PHARMACEUTICALS DIVISION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EISAI CO., LTD. AND EISAI MEDICAL RESEARCH, INC.,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 16-2641 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Filed: 09/13/2017 (1 of 11) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BY OPINION OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ABBVIE INC., Case No. -cv-0-emc United States District Court 0 v. Plaintiff, NOVARTIS VACCINES AND DIAGNOSTICS, INC., et al., Defendants. REDACTED/PUBLIC
More informationCase 3:06-cv JSW Document 203 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 1 of 6
Case :0-cv-00-JSW Document 0 Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 R. Scott Jerger (pro hac vice (Oregon State Bar #0 Field Jerger LLP 0 SW Alder Street, Suite 0 Portland, OR 0 Tel: (0 - Fax: (0-0 Email: scott@fieldjerger.com
More informationInfringement Assertions In The New World Order
Infringement Assertions In The New World Order IP Law360, October 17, 2007, Guest Column Author(s): Charles R. Macedo, Michael J. Kasdan Wednesday, Oct 17, 2007 The recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit
More informationPutting the Law (Back) in Patent Law
Putting the Law (Back) in Patent Law Some Thoughts on the Supreme Court s MedImmune Decision 21 March 2007 Joe Miller - Lewis & Clark Law School 1 Back in the Patent Game October 2005 Term Heard three
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT SIMONIZ USA, INC. : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 3:16-cv-00688 (VAB) : DOLLAR SHAVE CLUB, INC. : Defendant. : RULING ON DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationDeclaratory Judgment Actions in Patent Cases: The Federal Circuit's Response to MedImmune v. Genetech
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 23 Issue 1 Article 8 January 2008 Declaratory Judgment Actions in Patent Cases: The Federal Circuit's Response to MedImmune v. Genetech Jennifer R. Saionz Follow
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit G. DAVID JANG, M.D., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION AND SCIMED LIFE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Petitioners. 2014-134 On Petition
More informationCase 1:16-cv JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 X : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : X. Plaintiffs,
Case 116-cv-03852-JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------- COMCAST CORPORATION,
More informationPatent Trial and Appeal Board Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.) *1 ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS. PETITIONER, v. ISIS INNOVATION LIMITED PATENT OWNER.
Page 1 2013 WL 2181162 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd.) Attorney for Petitioner: Greg H. Gardella Scott A. McKeown Oblon Spivak ggardella@oblon.com smckeown@oblon.com Attorney for Patent Owner: Eldora L. Ellison
More informationCase 1:10-cv JCJ Document 20 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 110-cv-00137-JCJ Document 20 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MILLENNIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and SCHERING CORP., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION
More informationCase: 5:17-cv SL Doc #: 22 Filed: 12/01/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 1107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 5:17-cv-01695-SL Doc #: 22 Filed: 12/01/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 1107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION BOUNTY MINERALS, LLC, CASE NO. 5:17cv1695 PLAINTIFF, JUDGE
More informationNavigating through the Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Minefield Landslide Vol. 10, No. 3 January/February 2018
Navigating through the Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Minefield Landslide Vol. 10, No. 3 January/February 2018 Elizabeth A Doherty, PhD 925.231.1991 elizabeth.doherty@mcneillbaur.com Amelia Feulner
More informationNo IN THE EISAI CO. LTD AND EISAI MEDICAL RESEARCH, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., through its GATE PHARMACEUTICALS Division,
No. 10-1070 ~[~ 2 7 7.i~[ IN THE EISAI CO. LTD AND EISAI MEDICAL RESEARCH, INC., Petitioners, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., through its GATE PHARMACEUTICALS Division, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT
More informationCase 1:15-cv ILG-SMG Document 204 Filed 12/05/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: : : Plaintiff, : : : : : INTRODUCTION
Case 115-cv-02799-ILG-SMG Document 204 Filed 12/05/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID # 5503 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
NO. 15-307 In the Supreme Court of the United States MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., v. Petitioner, APOTEX INC., Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
More informationORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO TRANSFER OR STAY
Pfizer Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc. Doc. 50 Civil Action No. 09-cv-02392-CMA-MJW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello PFIZER, INC., PFIZER PHARMACEUTICALS,
More informationCase 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:15-cv-01059-MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : No. 15-1059
More informationThe Supreme Court Appears Likely to Place the Burden of Proof in Declaratory-Judgment Actions on the Patentees
The Supreme Court Appears Likely to Place the Burden of Proof in Declaratory-Judgment Actions on the Patentees BY ROBERT M. MASTERS & IGOR V. TIMOFEYEV November 2013 On November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court
More informationRECENT FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS ASSESSING JURISDICTION Richard Basile Partner St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC Stamford CT
RECENT FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS ASSESSING JURISDICTION Richard Basile Partner St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC Stamford CT I. INTRODUCTION During the last year the Court of Appeals for the Federal
More informationNo FOREST LABORATORIES, INC., FORES~LASO~TO~S Hot~mes, L~., ~D H. LU~.CK A/S, Petitioners,
No. 08-624 FOREST LABORATORIES, INC., FORES~LASO~TO~S Hot~mes, L~., ~D H. LU~.CK A/S, Petitioners, CARACO PHARI~CEUTICAL LABORATORIES, L~D., Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari To the United
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 05-1390 JOHN FORCILLO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. ALREADY, LLC d/b/a YUMS, NIKE, INC.,
No. 11-982 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ALREADY, LLC d/b/a YUMS, Petitioner, v. NIKE, INC., Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT BRIEF
More informationCase5:12-cv RMW Document41 Filed10/10/12 Page1 of 10
Case:-cv-0-RMW Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 E-FILED on 0/0/ 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff,
More informationOklahoma Law Review. John M. Bunting. Volume 62 Number 2
Oklahoma Law Review Volume 62 Number 2 2010 Surefoot LC v. Sure Foot Corp.: A New Standard for Tenth Circuit Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property Disputes, or How Cardtoons Got the
More informationCase 3:18-cv GAG Document 33 Filed 10/17/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO OPINION AND ORDER
Case :-cv-0-gag Document Filed // Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO NORTON LILLY INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. PUERTO RICO PORTS AUTHORITY, Defendant. CASE
More informationStop the Bleeding: Medimmune Ends the Unjustified Erosion of Patent Holders' Rights in Patent Licensing Agreements
Journal of Intellectual Property Law Volume 16 Issue 1 Symposium - James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer's Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovations at Risk Article 7 October 2008
More informationReasonable Royalties After EBay
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Reasonable Royalties After EBay Monday, Sep
More informationCase: 3:11-cv bbc Document #: 487 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 1 of 7
Case: 3:11-cv-00178-bbc Document #: 487 Filed: 11/02/12 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationCase 1:07-cv PAC Document 57 Filed 03/27/09 Page 1 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x CLINIQUE LA PRAIRIE, S.A., : USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED
More information: : : : In its Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff The Velvet Underground ( VU ) seeks, inter
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X THE VELVET UNDERGROUND, A PARTNERSHIP, BY ITS GENERAL PARTNERS, JOHN
More informationCase 1:17-cv FB-CLP Document 77 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1513
Case 1:17-cv-03653-FB-CLP Document 77 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1513 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------X POPSOCKETS
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No.06-937 In the Supreme Court of the United States QUANTA COMPUTER, INC., ET AL., v. Petitioners, LG ELECTRONICS, INC., Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationPatent Enforcement Pre-Litigation Considerations
Patent Enforcement Pre-Litigation Considerations The Intellectual Property Society April 10, 2005 Patrick Reilly 1 I. Pre-Litigation Check-List 2 Purposes of a Pre-Litigation Check-List Validity Can the
More informationPaper 15 Tel: Entered: July 28, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 15 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 28, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, Petitioner, v. PROPERTY
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ABBVIE INC. AND ABBVIE BIOTECHNOLOGY LIMITED, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE MATHILDA AND TERENCE KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF RHEUMATOLOGY TRUST, Defendant-Appellant.
More informationEccleston & Wegner, MedImmune: The Federal Circuit Fills in the Blanks
MEDIMMUNE: THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT FILLS IN THE BLANKS * Lynn E. Eccleston ** & Harold C. Wegner *** I. OVERVIEW MedImmune! This has been the rallying cry for patent and licensing executives for more than
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. arbitrable. Concluding that the arbitrator, not the court, should decide this issue, the court
Case 3:16-cv-00264-D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID 623 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION A & C DISCOUNT PHARMACY, L.L.C. d/b/a MEDCORE
More informationCase 3:16-cv CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9
Case 3:16-cv-00350-CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION NYKOLAS ALFORD and STEPHEN THOMAS; and ACLU
More informationTechnology Contracts and Agreements: A Practice Guide to Effective Negotiation, Drafting and Strategy
Technology Contracts and Agreements: A Practice Guide to Effective Negotiation, Drafting and Strategy Keith Witek Director of Strategy & Corp Development AMD Ed Cavazos Principal Fish & Richardson P.C.
More informationCase 3:09-cv MO Document 47 Filed 05/06/2010 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Case 3:09-cv-01494-MO Document 47 Filed 05/06/2010 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION ASSOCIATED OREGON INDUSTRIES and CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES
More informationReverse Patent Declaratory Judgment Actions: A Proposed Solution for Medtronic
The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2013 Reverse Patent Declaratory Judgment Actions:
More informationCase 7:14-cv O Document 57 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 996
Case 7:14-cv-00087-O Document 57 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION NEWCO ENTERPRISES, LLC, v. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
More informationSUCCESSFULLY LITIGATING METHOD OF USE PATENTS IN THE U.S.
SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATING METHOD OF USE PATENTS IN THE U.S. The 10 th Annual Generics, Supergenerics, and Patent Strategies Conference London, England May 16, 2007 Provided by: Charles R. Wolfe, Jr. H. Keeto
More informationCase 3:11-cv JAP -TJB Document 32 Filed 07/06/11 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 530 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:11-cv-03111-JAP -TJB Document 32 Filed 07/06/11 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 530 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : NOSTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, : : Plaintiff,
More informationCase3:13-cv CRB Document53 Filed11/06/13 Page1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:-cv-0-CRB Document Filed/0/ Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (f/k/a The Bank of New York) and THE BANK OF NEW YORK
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:14-cv-02540-RGK-RZ Document 40 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:293 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 14-2540-RGK (RZx) Date August
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. ) ) ) ) ) ) Civ. No SLR ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE BELDEN TECHNOLOGIES INC. and BELDEN CDT (CANADA INC., v. Plaintiffs, SUPERIOR ESSEX COMMUNICATIONS LP and SUPERIOR ESSEX INC., Defendants.
More informationHONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. Michelle Urie
#:4308 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 7 Page ID Title: YOKOHAMA RUBBER COMPANY LTD ET AL. v. STAMFORD TYRES INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD ET AL. PRESENT: HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Michelle
More informationCase 2:10-cv RAJ -TEM Document 62 Filed 03/01/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 1155
Case 2:10-cv-00616-RAJ -TEM Document 62 Filed 03/01/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 1155 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURX FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division FILED MAR -1 2011 FRED HUTCHINSON
More informationUnited States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Case 6:11-cv-00441-MHS Document 304 Filed 01/13/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 8335 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ALLERGAN, INC. v. Cause No. 6:11-cv-441 Consolidated
More informationStanding to Sue in the Myriad Genetics Case
The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2011 Standing to Sue in the Myriad Genetics Case
More informationTeva v. EISAI: What's the Real Controversy
Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review Volume 18 Issue 1 2011 Teva v. EISAI: What's the Real Controversy Grace Wang University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 2:06-cv-03462-WJM-MF Document 161 Filed 10/20/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 5250 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DAIICHI SANKYO, LIMITED and DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., v. Plaintiffs
More informationCase 6:08-cv LED Document 363 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Case 6:08-cv-00325-LED Document 363 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION REEDHYCALOG UK, LTD. and REEDHYCALOG, LP vs. Plaintiffs,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-2689-N ORDER
Case 3:14-cv-02689-N Document 15 Filed 01/09/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 141 149 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TUDOR INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Before the court is defendant/counterclaimant Yoshida s 1 motion to dismiss
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 SONIX TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD, Plaintiff, vs. KENJI YOSHIDA and GRID IP, PTE., LTD., Defendant. Case No.: 1cv0-CAB-DHB Order Regarding Motion
More informationCase 1:12-cv SLR Document 18 Filed 08/27/12 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 71 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:12-cv-00809-SLR Document 18 Filed 08/27/12 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 71 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PFIZER INC., WYETH LLC, WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and PF PRISM
More informationProveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 24 Issue 1 Article 10 January 2009 Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc. Berkeley Technology Law Journal Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj
More informationFrom PLI s Program New Strategies Arising from the Hatch-Waxman Amendments #4888
From PLI s Program New Strategies Arising from the Hatch-Waxman Amendments #4888 New Strategies Arising From the Hatch-Waxman Amendments Practicing Law Institute Telephone Briefing May 12, 2004 I. INTRODUCTION
More information2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 1 United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATO- RIES, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOREST LABORATORIES, INC., Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., and H. Lundbeck
More informationCase 6:14-cv CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331
Case 6:14-cv-01400-CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., MARRIOTT VACATIONS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 EBS AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES; MOC PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC.; ABF TECHNOLOGIES, INC., vs. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC; CMC INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-H-KSC Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 MULTIMEDIA PATENT TRUST, vs. APPLE INC., et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Defendants. CASE NO. 0-CV--H (KSC)
More informationTerry Guerrero. PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY THE CASE (Doc. 23)
Case 8:12-cv-01661-JST-JPR Document 41 Filed 05/22/13 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:1723 Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Terry Guerrero Deputy Clerk ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 1 PROTEOTECH, INC., a Washington Corporation, v. Plaintiff, UNICITY INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Utah corporation, et al., Defendants. Case
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 15-3540 Elizabeth McLeod; Heidi O Sullivan; Sherri Slocum; Ivette Harper; Robert West; Kevin Stemwell; Stephen Miller; Peggy Maxe; Karalyn Littlefield;
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CELGARD, LLC, Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. LG CHEM, LTD. AND LG CHEM AMERICA, INC., Defendants-Appellants. 2014-1675,
More informationTECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC
TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC www.tblawadvisors.com Fall 2011 Business Implications of the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS A123 SYSTEMS, INC., * * Plaintiff, * v. * * Civil Action No. 06-10612-JLT HYDRO-QUÉBEC, * * Defendant. * * MEMORANDUM TAURO, J. September 28, 2009
More informationCase 2:13-cv LDD Document 23 Filed 08/14/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:13-cv-01999-LDD Document 23 Filed 08/14/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : NO. 13-cv-01999
More informationCase 3:14-cv MLC-TJB Document Filed 07/24/15 Page 2 of 16 PageID: 1111 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1 BACKGROUND...
Case 3:14-cv-02550-MLC-TJB Document 100-1 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 1110 Keith J. Miller Michael J. Gesualdo ROBINSON MILLER LLC One Newark Center, 19th Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102 Telephone:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 SONIX TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, KENJI YOSHIDA and GRID IP, PTE., LTD., Defendant. Case No.: 1cv0-CAB-DHB ORDER GRANTING
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/ :48 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x PETER R. GINSBERG LAW LLC, Plaintiff, v. SOFLA SPORTS LLC, Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JACK HENRY & ASSOCIATES INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-3745-N PLANO ENCRYPTION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
PHARMANET, INC. et al v. DATASCI LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Doc. 14 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : PHARMANET, INC. et. al., : : Civ. No. 08-2965 (GEB) Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Innovus Prime, LLC v. Panasonic Corporation et al Doc. United States District Court INNOVUS PRIME, LLC, v. Plaintiff, PANASONIC CORPORATION AND PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 14-12298-DJC WANGS ALLIANCE CORP., d/b/a WAC LIGHTING
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION VENTRONICS SYSTEMS, LLC Plaintiff, vs. DRAGER MEDICAL GMBH, ET AL. Defendants. CASE NO. 6:10-CV-582 PATENT CASE ORDER
More informationCase 3:07-cv Document 38 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:07-cv-00615 Document 38 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DONALD KRAUSE, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-0615-L v.
More informationBusiness Method Patents on the Chopping Block?
Business Method Patents on the Chopping Block? ACCA, San Diego Chapter General Counsel Roundtable and All Day MCLE Eric Acker and Greg Reilly Morrison & Foerster LLP San Diego, CA 2007 Morrison & Foerster
More informationDefendant. SUMMARY ORDER. Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc., d/b/a PPC commenced this action
Case 5:11-cv-00761-GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PPC BROADBAND, INC., d/b/a PPC, v. Plaintiff, 5:11-cv-761 (GLS/DEP) CORNING
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 14-1282 Case: CASE 14-1282 PARTICIPANTS Document: ONLY 44 Document: Page: 1 43 Filed: Page: 05/30/2014 1 Filed: 05/30/2014 2014-1282, -1291 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
More informationCase 0:10-cv WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:10-cv-61985-WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GARDEN-AIRE VILLAGE SOUTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC., a Florida
More informationCase 4:10-cv Y Document 197 Filed 10/17/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID 9245
Case 4:10-cv-00393-Y Document 197 Filed 10/17/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID 9245 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION PAR SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL. VS. CIVIL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Alvarado v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC Doc. United States District Court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 JAZMIN ALVARADO, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant.
More informationPaper No Entered: February 9, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 14 571-272-7822 Entered: February 9, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SANDOZ INC., Petitioner, v. ABBVIE BIOTECHNOLOGY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Eric Bondhus, Carl Bondhus, and Bondhus Arms, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Laser Aiming Systems Corporation, Inc., Civil No. 15-510 (DWF/FLN) Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Eric Bondhus, Carl Bondhus, and Bondhus
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:17-cv-02608-TCB Document 53 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION CRYSTAL JOHNSON and CORISSA L. BANKS, Plaintiffs,
More informationHOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. TITLEWORKS OF SOUTHWE...
Page 1 of 6 HOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. TITLEWORKS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., MIKHAIL TRAKHTENBERG, and WESTCOR LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Case No. 2:15-cv-219-FtM-29DNF.
More information