Archive for the ‘Infringement’ Category

Bayer loses patent royalty claim on claim construction

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011

Europe’s largest drug and chemical maker, Bayer AG, lost another effort to collect patent royalties from a competitor.  Bayer claims certain arthritis drugs violate a patent for antibodies against tumor necrosis factor, or TNF, an immune-cell protein linked to inflammation.

This time around, Bayer, which sued in 2009, conceded that Johnson & Johnson’s Simponi product isn’t infringing its patent under an interpretation of “human monoclonal antibodies” issued by a federal judge last month.  Bayer’s claim to royalties on sales of the rheumatoid arthritis drug , terminated last friday, could be revived if it wins its appeal of the ruling.

Earlier this month, Bayer made the same concession in a suit against Abbott Laboratories, maker of the arthritis drug Humira.

Bloomberg reported Oliver Renner, a Bayer spokesman, said after the Abbott ruling that the concesion was “a procedural step in order to allow a quick appeal” of the earlier determination on the definition of the phrase.  Moreover, the prestigious business publication reported Brian Kenney, a spokesman for J&J’s Centocor Ortho Biotech unit, saying the company agreed “…with the judge’s ruling related to the claim construction and remain confident that it will be sustained on appeal” .

The case is Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Centocor Ortho Biotech Inc., 09cv11362, and the Abbott case is Abbott Laboratories v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, 09cv40002, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Worcester).

Patent Lawsuit Reform Act of 2011

Thursday, January 20th, 2011

Seeking to put a stop to the flood windfall-seeking patent marking lawsuits from special purpose entities, Rep. Robert Latta (R-OH) reintroduced a bill (H.R. 243) that would revise section 292 to revert to the practice of assessing one $500 fine for marking unpatented articles or patent-expired patents and, importantly, to require the party bringing the false marking suit to “have suffered a competitive injury” as a result of the violation.

Further details are explained at the patent law and news blog Patent Docs .