Archive for the ‘Litigation’ 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).

Clash of the Domains: .co Versus .com

Monday, January 31st, 2011

Another WIPO decision has come down which should spark some worries for website operators that registered domains last year when the “.co” Colombia country code top level domain (ccTLD) extension became available generally last July. The availability generated interest as a potential competitor to generic TLDs for commercial use given its possible use as the abbreviation for the word “company” as their promoters emphasized (see e.g. http://www.cointernet.co/).

The domain at issue most recently is the very descriptive <pokerstrategy.co> domain. According to the recent report by The Domain Blog, a UDRP complain was brought by Swerford Holdings Ltd. (“Swerford”) which had, according to the complaint, operated the <pokerstrategy.com> site since 2002.

The respondent in the case, Prasad Jason, registered < pokerstrategy.co > last July and proceeded to operate a relatively competing business model.

Considering that the Complainant is required to demonstrate that it has trademark rights in a relevant mark whether the mark is comprised of a combination of two common English words (as in this case) or otherwise, the WIPO panel indicated that Swerford demonstrated that it owns a German word mark registration for POKERSTRATEGY which fulfills the requirement.

The respondent previously operated a business through its <winner.com> and, prior to filing the UDRP action counteroffered a $20,000 to $25,000 settlement to transfer the domain to Swerford. Consequently the panel inferred that is most likely the Respondent had, in bad faith, taken the opportunity to register the domain at issue to attract internet traffic to his own business. With thyat, the panel ordered that the disputed domain name be transferred to Swerford.

A similar case last year, New Dream Network, LLC v. Yuanjin Wu (WIPO Case No. DCO2010-0013), also covered by The Domain Blog, also dealt with what is tantamount to a holding that a “.co” domain was typosquatting its “.com” counterpart.

The bases for the concerns here focuses on the weakness of the trademark which has won the adjudication. “Poker Strategy” (with or without a space) is, on its face, a strictly descriptive mark for a business that deals in “Poker Strategy.” Given the history of the TTAB in the last few years, it is doubtful such a mark could be registered today in the U.S. (See, for example, the dozens of rejections cited by The TTAB Blog). This is on the low end of the “Abercrombie Scale”; set forth by a federal appeals court in Abercrombie & Fitch Co. vs. Hunting World, Inc., consisting of five different categories in order of generally increasing distinctiveness:

  • generic
  • descriptive
  • suggestive
  • arbitrary
  • fanciful

Thus, the bar is pretty low at the WIPO to defend trademark registrations from the recently registered “.co” domains.