By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Vite Technologies, LLC v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Civil Action No. 14-1507-SLR (D.Del., July 23, 2015), the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Strike a number of the paragraphs of the affirmative defenses and counterclaims contained in Defendant's Answer that referred to a disciplinary action taken by the Medical Board of California against the inventor of the patent-in-suit concerning the billing practices in her physician practice more than a decade after the issuance of the patent-in-suit. The Court found the challenged material to be both unnecessary and scandalous. Id. at 3. Specifically, the Court found "defendant's use of the Board Decision – which issued more than a decade after the issuance of the '892 patent – to be an intentional effort to cast the inventor in a derogatory light at the outset of the case, an effort that adds nothing of value to the allegations of the inventor's knowledge during the prosecution of the '892 patent." The Court noted that it refused to allow such a tactic to be the "bellweather of [the] litigation." Id. at 4.
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
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.
