Goldenberg, et al. v. Cytogen, Inc., et al. (Fed. Cir.)

June 23, 2004 on 9:33 am | In Caselaw |

Goldenberg and Immunomedics v. Cytogen and C.R. Bard
Fed. Cir., June 23, 2004
Before SCHALL, GAJARSA, and PROST
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge GAJARSA.
Opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge PROST.

Milton D. Goldenberg (“Goldenberg”) and Immunomedics, Inc. (collectively, “Immunomedics”), appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of United States Patent No. 4,460,559 (the “’559 patent”) in favor of Cytogen, Inc., and C.R. Bard, Inc. (collectively, “Cytogen”), by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Goldenberg v. Cytogen, Inc., No. 00-763 (AET) (D.N.J. Apr. 30, 2003) (“Summary Judgment Opinion”). While we agree with the district court’s claim construction, and that summary judgment of no literal infringement was appropriate, we disagree with the grant of summary judgment of noninfringement under the doctrine of equivalents (Immunomedics’ comparison of the membrane-crossing ability of the 7E11-C5.3 antibody in ProstaScint to the membrane-crossing ability required by the ’559 patent presents a “lingering issue of fact preclud[ing] summary judgment . . . .” Leggett & Platt, 285 F.3d at 1360. The district court’s grant of summary judgment was therefore in error). Accordingly, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand.

 Print This Post |  Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

• Nystrom v. Trex Company, Inc. et al. (Fed. Cir.)
• Glaxo Group Limited, et al. v. Apotex, Inc. (Fed. Cir.)
• Metabolite Laboraories, Inc., et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (DBA LabCorp) (Fed. Cir.)