CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC. V. SOMAXON PHARMACEUTICALS
2:12-cv-06643-GAF-PLA, US District Court, Central District of California
In April 2013, the firm achieved victory when Judge Gary Allen Feess of the Central District of California dismissed Classen Immunotherapies, Inc's ("Classen") patent infringement claims against our client Somaxon Pharmaceuticals with prejudice. The two asserted Classen patents purport to claim methods of gathering, analyzing, and commercializing adverse event data. The Court dismissed Classen's claims on the grounds that Somaxon's collection and analysis of clinical data for its insomnia medication Silenor® fell within the "safe harbor" of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), which does not permit infringement suits for activities that are reasonably related to submission of information to the Food and Drug Administration. The Court also credited Somaxon's arguments that Classen could not prove infringement of its claimed methods by improperly conflating the proof required to demonstrate infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 with proof required to obtain a provisional patent rights remedy under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d).

CELLECTIS SA V. PRECISION BIOSCIENCES
In May 2013, WilmerHale secured a victory for client Precision BioSciences, Inc., a leader in the field of genome engineering, in a patent infringement lawsuit against Cellectis SA. A jury found that all of the claims of Cellectis' US Pat. No. 7,897,372 ("the '372 patent") that were asserted against Precision are invalid both as obvious and for failure to meet the written description requirement and that Precision did not literally infringe the asserted claims. This litigation was the third infringement action brought by Cellectis against Precision since 2008. To date, every patent claim asserted by Cellectis against Precision has been (a) held invalid by a US District Court judge, (b) found invalid by a jury in a US District Court trial, (c) held invalid by the US Patent and Trademark Office, or (d) dismissed by Cellectis in the relevant litigation.

BRAINTREE LABORATORIES, INC. V. NOVEL LABORATORIES, INC.
3:11-cv-01341, US District Court, District of New Jersey
In June 2013, WilmerHale obtained a favorable final judgment in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey for Braintree Laboratories, Inc. (Braintree) in its patent infringement case against Novel Laboratories (Novel). The matter involved SUPREP ®—Braintree's small volume sulfate-based colonoscopy preparation product—and Novel's proposed plan to make a generic version of the drug.

Braintree, a privately owned pharmaceutical company, sued Novel for patent infringement in March 2011 after it received a Paragraph IV letter. Following a six-day bench trial in February 2013, Judge Peter Sheridan found that Novel had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims of the patent at issue, US Patent No. 6,946,149, are invalid for obviousness, anticipation, or indefiniteness. In his opinion, Judge Sheridan evaluated over 15 pieces of prior art asserted by Novel and concluded that Braintree's expert was more credible than Novel's expert in explaining why the asserted claims were neither anticipated nor obvious. The Court had earlier entered summary judgment for Braintree on its infringement claim and dismissed Novel's counterclaims. Injunctions implementing the Court's rulings were entered on June 19. The judgment is currently on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

KODAK V. ALTEK CORPORATION
In October 2013, a jury in SDNY returned a verdict in favor of our client Kodak, resulting in a damages award of $75.8 million. Prior to trial, the Kodak team obtained summary judgment that Ricoh owed royalties on point and shoot cameras. On the eve of trial, Ricoh stipulated to $53 million in damages on point and shoot cameras. That left one issue to be tried—whether Ricoh also owed royalties on Digital Single Lens Reflex ("DSLR") camera bodies sold in the same box as a DSLR lens. On that issue, the jury found in Kodak's favor, increasing the damages by $22.8 million.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.