Federal Circuit
State Sovereign Immunity Does Not Trump Patent Venue Statute
Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 2018-1700 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 5, 2019)
The appellants filed this patent infringement suit in the Western District of Texas. The district court found improper venue, and transferred the case to Delaware. The university appealed the transfer order. The Federal Circuit held that sovereign immunity does not apply and cannot be asserted to challenge a venue decision where a state acts only as a plaintiff.
District Court Did Not Abuse Discretion in Excluding Expert's Infringement Opinion
Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Nos. 2017-2617, 2018-1042 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 5, 2019)
The district court excluded plaintiff's expert's infringement opinion for failure to timely disclose a new (and narrower) infringement theory, and then granted summary judgment of no infringement based on the resulting lack of direct infringement evidence. The Federal Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert report and affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
District Court
Court Rejects Overly Strict Reading of Definiteness Requirement for Measurement Claims
Vifor Fresenius Medical Care v. Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA, C.A. No. 18-390-LPS (D. Del. Sep. 5, 2019)
In this ANDA litigation, the court construed claim terms and rejected defendants' indefiniteness arguments. The court first rejected defendants' argument that the term "essentially non-bioabsorbable" is indefinite because the patent specification provided sufficient guidance to one skilled in the art that they would know the bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty. Regarding a claim to "iron release rate," the court rejected an "overly-strict reading of Nautilus: one requiring that patentees who claim a measurement must also clearly and unambiguously identify a single method of measurement expressly tied to the claim limititation, with implicit or explicit disavowal of all other methods." The court also disposed of indefiniteness arguments relating to other limititations.
https://compass.docketnavigator.com/api/documents/ filing/69b92697-ff4d-9a49-5c49-e4229c8b4ad8 (subscription required)
Substantial Evidence Supported Jury Verdict
Vectura Ltd. v GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Civil Action No. 16-638-RGA (D. Del. Sep. 10, 2019)
A jury found defendant liable for infringement and awarded a 3% running royalty. The district court denied defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial on issues of infringement, obviousness and damages. Substantial evidence in the record supported the jury's findings.
https://compass.docketnavigator.com/api/documents/ filing/57e0cf29-a152-f1dc-928b-72a948e02f7a (subscription required)
No Nexus Required Between Established Place of Business and Acts of Infringement for Venue
Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., No. 18-CV-1518 JLS (S.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2019)
The district court denied Lilly's motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue. The court found plaintiff's general allegations of infringement, followed by factual examples of alleged infringing activity, were more than sufficient to meet the pleading standard for venue purposes. The court also rejected Lilly's argument that a nexus is required between alleged acts of infringement and the defendant's established place of business. The plain language of the patent venue statute requires no such nexus and the court declined to read one into the statute. The court did dismiss plaintiff's willful infringement claim because the allegations of the complaint, taken as true, did not rise to the level of egregious conduct.
https://compass.docketnavigator.com/api/documents/ filing/7fcdeaf1-1c9a-c813-fce2-d4f575195856 (subscription required)
To view the full article click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
