Patent Infringement

November 12, 2024

Novartis Battles Competitors Over Patent Disputes in Radiopharmaceuticals

Novartis is a Swiss pharmaceutical company known for developing innovative medicines and therapies, particularly in the radiopharmaceutical market. The company is taking steps to strengthen its position by filing lawsuits against competitors over alleged patent violations concerning its top cancer therapies, Pluvicto and Lutathera. These actions began in 2024 and involve Eli Lilly, its subsidiary, Point Biopharma, Lantheus, and Curium Pharma.

In June 2024, Novartis and the Purdue Research Foundation filed a lawsuit in Indiana, claiming that Lilly’s PNT2002 infringes on their U.S. Patent No. 10,624,970. Because PNT2002 describes similar conjugates and methods to treat the same kind of cancer (prostate) that Pluvicto is designed to treat, Novartis alleges direct competition with their product.

Lilly and the other defendants have requested the Court dismiss the lawsuit, arguing it is not in direct competition, as PNT2002 is not yet ready for the market and may not even receive regulatory approval by June 2025.

August 30, 2024

Courtroom Close Call: Knauf and Johns Manville Settle Patent Dispute Days Before Trial

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

An Indiana federal judge has dismissed a patent infringement lawsuit between Knauf Insulation Inc. and Johns Manville Corp. just days before trial. Chief U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt chose not to overturn previous rulings on claim construction, stating it would be against public interest and waste substantial efforts already put into the case.

On August 16, the two companies jointly requested dismissal of the 2015 lawsuit, which alleged that Johns Manville’s EasyFit and Flex-Glass insulation products infringed on seven Knauf patents. Although the case is dismissed, the court’s earlier rulings, including invalidation of six patents, remain in effect.

Judge Pratt argued that vacating prior rulings would not benefit the public and could encourage prolonged litigation. She cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership as precedent against overturning rulings after settlement.

June 21, 2024

Cancer Treatment Controversy: Eli Lilly and POINT Biopharma Sued by Purdue for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Eli Lilly and Co., together with POINT Biopharma, are facing a lawsuit accusing them of willful infringement of a cancer treatment patent held by the Purdue Research Foundation. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that the defendants have infringed on patents related to radiotherapeutic drugs for prostate cancer, particularly focusing on POINT’s drug PNT2002.

The Purdue Research Foundation, along with co-plaintiffs Endocyte Inc. and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., claims that POINT’s PNT2002 infringes on U.S. Patent 10,624,970, which covers treatments targeting the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA). The plaintiffs assert that POINT’s actions have caused substantial damage and are seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Lilly’s spokesperson stated that the lawsuit lacks merit and expressed confidence in defending against the claims. The case, assigned to District Judge Richard Young and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker, is documented under Case No. 1:24-cv-01011.

March 1, 2024

Precision and Clarity in Patent Claims: A Case Study of CAFC’s Ruling on U.S. Patent No. 9,361,658

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In a recent CAFC ruling on U.S. Patent No. 9,361,658, owned by Mantissa Corporation, the court addressed the issue of claim definiteness in the context of an infringement dispute with First Financial Corporation and First Financial Bank, N.A. The case focused on interpreting terms like “transaction partner” and “OFF” within the patent claims. The district court, relying on expert testimony, found “transaction partner” indefinite, a decision challenged by Mantissa. However, the CAFC majority emphasized intrinsic evidence from the patent itself, highlighting the term’s absence in the original specification and rejecting Mantissa’s argument that a person of ordinary skill would understand it as a seller. The court declined to address the construction of “OFF” due to jurisdictional constraints. Judge Schall dissented, arguing for a broader interpretation of “transaction partner” based on the specification’s references to multiple parties involved in transactions.

Ultimately, the CAFC’s ruling highlights the importance of precision and clarity in patent claims. It emphasizes the intrinsic evidence as a primary source for claim interpretation and underscores the significance of ensuring that claim terms are adequately defined within the patent specification itself. This case serves as a reminder of the critical role that claim definiteness plays in the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

Opinion

January 15, 2024

Tap Wars: Delta Faucet Company’s Patent Dispute with Sanitary Ware

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In the modern era of technological advancements and the burgeoning landscape of online commerce, the interconnection of patent law with the dynamics of e-commerce platforms presents intricate challenges. A recent legal dispute between Wenzhou Xin Xin Sanitary Ware Co., Ltd. (“Sanitary Ware” or “Plaintiff”) and Delta Faucet Company (“DFC”) illuminates the complexities faced by international entities selling products on major online platforms like Amazon, particularly concerning allegations of patent infringement.

According to the complaint, Sanitary Ware, a Chinese-based company operating as “HGN Sanitary Ware,” sells kitchen appliances and accessories, including glass rinsers, primarily through the Amazon Marketplace. Court documents also describe DFC, as an American plumbing fixture manufacturer under Masco Corporation, who is alleging patent infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 11,473,277 (“the ‘277 Patent”) against specific Xin Glass Rinsers listed by Sanitary Ware on Amazon.

DFC claims ‘277 Patent details a rinsing apparatus comprising components like a mounting base, fluid discharge member, valve member, and escutcheon. DFC says they initiated an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (“APEX”) proceeding against Sanitary Ware’s Xin Glass Rinser based on claim 1 of the ‘277 Patent, and Sanitary Ware chose not to participate in the APEX, leading Amazon to remove the listing of the disputed Xin Glass Rinser.

December 15, 2023

Legal Verdict: STMicroelectronics Liable for $32.5M Damages to Purdue University in Transistor Technology Patent Case

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

STMicroelectronics, a leading European chipmaker, has been held accountable for violating Purdue University’s patent related to transistor technology. This ruling, delivered by a jury in a West Texas court, resulted in a $32.5 million damages verdict. The jury supported Purdue’s argument that ST’s use of silicon carbide metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs) in electric-vehicle chargers and other devices breached the university’s patent rights specifically pertaining to transistors designed for “high-voltage power applications.” In response, an ST spokesperson announced the company’s plan to challenge the verdict by filing an appeal.

Michael Shore, an attorney representing Purdue, highlighted compelling evidence against ST, suggesting potential additional royalties exceeding $100 million before the patent’s expiration in 2026.

MOSFETs play a critical role in electronic devices by controlling and amplifying electricity flow. Purdue initiated the lawsuit against ST in 2021, alleging that the company’s MOSFETs infringed upon two of its transistor technology patents. However, one of Purdue’s patents was removed from the case by the university in West Lafayette, Indiana last year. ST contested the accusations, arguing that the remaining Purdue patent was invalid.

December 8, 2023

Orthopedic Plate System at Center of Patent Infringement Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Plaintiff OrthoPediatrics Corp. (“OP”) filed a Complaint against fellow Warsaw, Indiana corporation, WishBone Medical, Inc. (“WishBone”). They are alleging patent infringement concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,777,998, titled “Pediatric Long Bone Support or Fixation Plate.”

The complaint states that the Plaintiff (OP) has designed and patented an innovative orthopedic plate system explicitly made for pediatric patients. They claim that the patent in question addresses a longstanding issue in pediatric orthopedics—specifically adapting adult implants for use in children, which poses risks such as damaging the epiphyseal plate or stunting bone growth.

The Plaintiff asserts that WishBone’s introduction of their “PRIMA™ Femoral Locking Plate System” infringes upon Patent 8,777,998 through alleged replication of at least three of its claimed features. OP further asserts that in addition to manufacturing their own allegedly infringing product, WishBone also markets and sells the product.

November 24, 2023

Davaus, LLC Brings Suit Over Alleged Patent Infringement of Agricultural Product

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hoagland, Indiana – A legal filing initiated by Davaus, LLC against S7 IP Holdings, LLC and Shawn Gengerke is a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. According to the complaint, Davaus seeks legal affirmation that their product, the Kernel Keeper™, does not infringe, is not covered by, and renders invalid the United States Patent No. 9,961,830 claimed by S7, specifically related to S7’s product called the “Harvest Sweep.” S7 alleged that the Kernel Keeper™ infringed on their patent and demanded Davaus cease its production and sale. Davaus states that they responded by explaining how their product differs from the patented claims, but S7 rejected this explanation and reiterated the demand to stop production.

Davaus contends that their product does not infringe upon S7’s patent and requests the court to rule that their product does not violate the patent, and that the patent itself is invalid and unenforceable. This legal action aims to prevent legal repercussions against Davaus based on the patent claimed by S7.

The case has been assigned to Chief Judge Holly A. Brady and Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins, in the U.S. District Court of Northern Indiana, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00398-HAB-SLC.

November 13, 2023

Delta Faucet Files Patent Infringement Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – A lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Delta Faucet Company against Defendant Wenzhou Xin Xin Sanitary Ware Co., Ltd. involves an allegation of patent infringement over United States Patent No. 11,725,369. Court documents state the patent at issue is for a “Vessel Rinsing Apparatus,” that was issued on August 15, 2023.

The Plaintiff claims the Defendant has been manufacturing, using, selling, and importing vessel rinsing apparatuses that are “functionally equivalent [to Delta’s products] and only differ in finish…,” thereby infringing upon Delta’s patent rights. Delta further cites Wenzhou’s use of Amazon to sell the accused products and encourage others to infringe the patent, as well.

The lawsuit details Wenzhou’s alleged deliberate and willful infringement by continuing to sell the accused products even after notice of the patent in question. The Plaintiff is, therefore, seeking a court judgment in favor of Delta in the form of injunctions, damages, and legal fees.

November 10, 2023

Rights to Asphalt Paving Technology at Dispute in Lawsuit Between AarMaz Products Inc, and Rieth-Riley Construction Co.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Mulberry, Florida – Plaintiff ArrMaz Products Inc. has filed a lawsuit against Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc. of Goshen, Indiana, alleging patent infringement related to their asphalt paving technologies covered by U.S. Patents Nos. 7,802,941 and 8,465,843. These patents are associated with ArrMaz’s BondTekk® bonded-paving technology, adopted by multiple states and contractors for creating safer and more durable roads.

The original complaint states that Rieth-Riley Construction is also involved in asphalt paving services and operates in several Midwestern states where asphalt-paving projects are awarded through competitive bidding. In February 2022, the claim states, the Plaintiff notified Rieth-Riley that ArrMaz’s patents covered specific projects awarded to Rieth-Riley by the state of Indiana and offered a license for their use. However, ArrMaz claims that Rieth-Riley expressed an intention to ignore the patents and not obtain the necessary licenses before moving forward with the project.

ArrMaz alleges that Rieth-Riley not only infringed on their patents but also engaged in willful infringement by using and selling the patented technology. Therefore, ArrMaz is seeking a court injunction to prevent Rieth-Riley from using or selling their patented products without the proper licenses. Additionally, they are seeking a monetary award to cover damages, including the costs and expenses of the lawsuit.