Case Summaries
[09/07] Geoddel v. Sugano
In two related patent interference priority contests, related to human fibroblasts interferon used in combating pathogens and tumors, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences' decision that appellee is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of its initial Japanese application in awarding appellee priority as to the counts of both interferences is reversed and remanded as the Board's decision that the Japanese Application constitutes constructive reduction to practice of the subject matter of these interferences is not in accordance with law, for the Japanese Application does not meet the criteria of section 112, first paragraph, as to this subject matter.
[09/03] Campbell v. Davol, Inc.
In plaintiff's product liability suit against defendants claiming that a hernia patch that was surgically placed in her abdomen following breast reconstructive surgery was defective, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to the issue of successor liability; 2) district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the post-sale failure to warn claim as there was no contractual relationship to provide services to customers who purchased the hernia patch from the manufacturer; and 3) there is no err in finding plaintiff's claims against defendant were barred by Texas law.
[09/01] Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
In a patent infringement suit related to a drug for postmenopausal osteoporosis, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) the record amply supports the district court's conclusion that the ordinary artisan would not have considered it obvious to use raloxifene to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis; 2) because the district court's conclusion that the Bone Loss Patents would not have been obvious, its conclusion as to the Low Dose Patent is affirmed as well; 3) district court did not err in concluding that the Bone Loss Patents and the Low Dose Patents were not invalid for lack of enablement; 4) the district court did not clearly err in invalidating the asserted claims of the Particle Size Patents for lack of written description.
[08/27] Cedillo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Serv.
In plaintiff's suit brought under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, claiming a link between childhood vaccines and autism, Court of Federal Claims' affirmance of a Special Master's denial of petitioners' claim for compensation on behalf of their daughter is affirmed as, after careful review of the Special Master's decision, the court finds that it is rationally supported by the evidence, well-articulated, and reasonable.
[08/23] Eli Lilly & Co. v. Air Express Int'l. USA, Inc.
In an action concerning the spoliation of temperature-sensitive insulin products, which were shipped by air from France to Indiana and were exposed to sub-freezing temperatures en route, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where summary judgment was appropriately granted on the issue of whether the cargo was damaged in transit. However, the order is reversed in part where the parties did not intend for the liability provision of the long-term service agreement to subject the air waybill contracts to increased limits of liability.
[08/18] Wimbush v. Wyeth
In plaintiff's suit against a diet pill manufacturer claiming strict liability and common law negligence, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) it was proper to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment on a strict liability design defect claim as plaintiff failed to point to any evidence creating a factual dispute as to the adequacy of warning; 2) summary judgment for defendant on post-FDA approval negligence claims is affirmed as plaintiff failed to point to any actual evidence in a particularized manner; and 3) district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant on preemption grounds on plaintiff's pre-approval common law negligence claims as FDA approval does not automatically preempt state law tort claims for negligence.
[08/17] Rivera v. First Databank, Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit for negligence and breach of contract against a publisher of medication information, referred to as "monographs", claiming that defendant was negligent in preparing the Paxil monograph given to plaintiff-decedent (who committed suicide shortly after he began to use the medication for stress), because it should have included the so-called "black box" suicide warning issued by the FDA, trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in finding the publication of the monograph is not "free speech in connection with public issue or an issue of public interest, and defendant has shown that the contents of the monographs fall within the statute; 2) section 425.17(c) does not bar the anti-SLAPP motion; 3) plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that defendant owed them any duty as defendant is neither the manufacturer of Paxil, nor the pharmacy dispensing it; and 4) plaintiffs' breach of contract claim fails as they failed to substantiate their allegations that defendant owed them any duty vis-a-vis the monograph.
[08/12] Eli Lilly & Co. v. Gottstein
[08/11] Lindsey v. Walgreen Co.
In a 53-year-old pharmacist's suit against Walgreens under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) because the record reveals that the district pharmacy manager did not rely solely on the store pharmacy manager's allegations, plaintiff cannot make out her cat's paw theory (an unbiased decisionmaker who is being used as a tool by a biased employee); and 2) substantial and undisputed evidence in the record supports Walgreens' assertion that it fired plaintiff not because of her age but because she violated company policy.
[08/11] Robinson v. McNeil Consumer Healthcare
In plaintiff's products liability suit against defendant for developing a life threatening disease after taking doses of Children's Motrin, district court's judgment in favor of defendant finding that plaintiff had been contributorily negligent is affirmed where: 1) Virginia law governs this case as, to avoid the incentive to forum shop, the initial place of injury is properly deemed the place in which the injury occurred; 2) there was enough evidence that plaintiff was contributorily negligent to bar her claim under Virginia law and enough evidence that her contributory negligence exceeded the defendant's negligence to bar her claim even if Illinois rather than Virginia law applied.
[08/05] Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.
In a patent infringement suit, related to a patent for an extended release formulations of guaifenesin, (an expectorant used to thin, loosen, and help expel mucus that causes congestion), district court's judgment that the guaifenesin product described in defendant's ANDA would not infringe the asserted claims of plaintiff's patent is vacated and remanded where: 1) plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact on infringement under the proper construction of the term equivalent, sufficient to preclude summary judgment; 2) district court properly denied summary judgment of noninfringement on the limitation "immediate release form which becomes fully bioavailable in the subject's stomach"; and 3) district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 34 on the doctrine of equivalents is vacated.
[08/05] Collazo v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Mfg. Inc.
In plaintiff's suit for retaliatory termination against his former employer, alleging violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Puerto Rico law, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's Act 115 claim is proper as the undisputed facts demonstrate that plaintiff did not engage in protected activity under Act 115; and 2) the district court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that he was terminated for opposing sexual harassment in the workplace as, plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether his termination was motivated by retaliatory animus; and 3) a jury could reasonably conclude, based on the particularly close temporal connection between plaintiff's protected conduct and his termination and the deficiencies in defendant's articulated reorganization and performance rationales, that plaintiff was terminated because of his protected conduct.
[08/04] Intervet Inc. v. Merial Ltd.
In a patent infringement suit, involving patents directed to DNA constructs encoding a type of porcine cirovirus, district court's entry of summary judgment of noninfringement based on its construction of six disputed claim terms is reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) the district court's claim construction is reversed as it erred in construing the disputed claims of the patent in suit; 2) district court's judgment of noninfringement is vacated; and 3) because the district court erred in finding that prosecution history estoppel precluded defendant from arguing that the accused product is equivalent to one of the exemplary embodiments of the asserted claim, district court is instructed to consider on remand arguments related to literal infringement and to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
[08/02] King Pharm. Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc.
In plaintiff's patent infringement suit under the Hatch-Waxman Act, related to a name brand muscle relaxant used to treat "discomforts associated with acute, painful musculosketal conditions", judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) although the district court erred in invalidating several of the claims as unpatentable under section 101, all the claims of the '128 and '102 patents are ultimately anticipated under 35 U.S.C. section 102 or obvious under section 103 in light of the prior art; and 2) district court erred in entering a judgment of invalidity against Elan because no case or controversy currently exists between Elan and defendant.
[07/28] Sun Pharm. Indus. Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co.
In a generic drug manufacturer's suit for a declaratory judgment against Eli Lilly, seeking declaratory relief that a patent related to treating various forms of cancer is invalid and not infringed, district court's judgment finding certain claims of the patent invalid for obviousness-type double patenting over another patent is affirmed as the district court correctly followed the double patenting analysis of the Geneva line of cases, which address the situation in which an earlier patent claims a compound, disclosing the utility of that compound in the specification, and a later patent claims a method of using that compound for a particular use described in the specification of the earlier patent.
Back to Main
