Federal Circuit Update (Sept. 30 - Oct 5)

October 5, 2004 on 9:33 am | In Caselaw |

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, et al. v. Chiron Corporation
http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1572.doc
Federal Circuit, Sept. 30, 2004
Before MICHEL, GAJARSA, and LINN (opinion), Circuit Judges.

Chiron Corporation (”Chiron”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (”district court”) granting a motion brought by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Laboratory Corporation of America, and National Genetics Institute (collectively, “LabCorp”) to enjoin Chiron from prosecuting a parallel litigation co-pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Chiron Corp., No. 03 364 SLR (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2003) (”Order”).  Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to enjoin Chiron from maintaining the co-pending litigation in the Northern District of California, we affirm.

—————————- 

Astrazeneca AB, et al. v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.
http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1100.doc
Federal Circuit, Sept. 30, 2004
Before MICHEL (opinion), Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

Astrazeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hassle, KBI-E, Inc., KBI, Inc., and Astrazeneca LP (collectively, “Astrazeneca”) sued Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. (”Mutual”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), under which it is an “act of infringement” to submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application (”ANDA”) to the Food and Drug Administration (”FDA”) to obtain approval to market a drug that is claimed in a nonexpired patent. Astrazeneca alleged that Mutual infringed U.S. Patent No. 4,803,081 (the “‘081 patent”), titled “New Pharmaceutical Preparations With Extended Release,” by submitting an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval of extended-release felodipine tablets.  After construing the asserted claims of the ‘081 patent, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Astrazeneca’s motions for summary judgment on infringement and validity.  Astrazeneca AB v. Mut. Pharm. Co., Inc., 278 F. Supp. 2d 491 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (granting Astrazeneca’s motion for summary judgment on Mutual’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses concerning validity); 250 F. Supp. 2d 506 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (granting Astrazeneca’s motion for summary judgment of infringement); 221 F. Supp. 2d 535 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (construing asserted claims).  Holding that the district court erred in its claim construction by not recognizing the limiting effect of the ‘081 patent’s specification and prosecution history, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment of noninfringement.  Because we hold that the term “solubilizer” is limited to surfactants, we affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of Astrazeneca on invalidity.

—————————–

Insituform Technologies, Inc., et al. v. CAT Contracting, Inc., et al.
http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/99-1584.doc
Federal Circuit, Oct. 4, 2004
Before MAYER, Chief Judge, MICHEL, and SCHALL (opinion), Circuit Judges.

Defendants Cat Contracting, Inc. (”CAT”), Firstliner U.S.A., Inc. (”Firstliner”), Giulio Catallo (sometimes referred to as “Catallo”), and Michigan Sewer Construction Company (”MSC”) (”defendants”) appeal the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas holding them liable for infringement of United States Patent No. 4,366,012 (”the ‘012 patent”) and awarding plaintiffs Insituform Technologies, Inc. (”Insituform Technologies”), Insituform (Netherlands) B.V. (”Insituform Netherlands”), and Insituform Gulf South, Inc. (”Insituform Gulf”) (”plaintiffs”) damages for that infringement.  Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc., No. H-90-1690, slip op. (S.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 1999) (”District Court Opinion”).  Defendants also appeal the joinder of Insituform Netherlands as a plaintiff.  Id. at 21-22.  In addition, CAT, Firstliner, and Catallo appeal the district court’s joinder of Catallo as a defendant.  Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc., No. H-90-1690, slip op. at 9 (Aug. 30, 1999) (”Joinder Order”).  For their part, plaintiffs cross-appeal the ruling of the district court declining to hold defendant Kanal Sanierung Hans Mueller GmbH & Co. KG (”KS”) vicariously liable to plaintiffs under an alter-ego theory of induced infringement.  District Court Opinion, slip op. at 44-45.

We affirm the judgment of infringement with respect to all defendants.  We also affirm the district court’s joinder of Insituform Netherlands as a plaintiff, its joinder of Giulio Catallo as a defendant, and its ruling declining to hold KS vicariously liable for induced infringement.  However, we vacate the judgment that the infringement of CAT and Firstliner was willful and remand for further proceedings on the issue of willful infringement.  We also vacate the district court’s damages award and remand for further proceedings to determine damages based on when defendants ceased selling the pipe repair process that was found to infringe the ‘012 patent.  Accordingly, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand. 

 

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

Related Posts: Post-Plugin Library missing