Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

July 24, 2014

Lilly Successful in Defending Alimta Method-of-Use Patent

Indianapolis, Indiana – In conjunction with co-counsel, an Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly of Indianapolis, Indiana prevailed in the Southern District of Indiana on claims of patent infringement. At issue was Lilly’s patent on the use of Alimta® in conjunction with specific vitamins. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt concluded that Defendants Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. of Irvine, California; APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC of Schaumburg, Illinois; Pliva Hrvatska D.O.O. of Zagreb, Croatia; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. of North Wales, Pennsylvania; and Barr Laboratories, Inc. of Montvale, New Jersey failed to prove invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (the “‘209 Patent”) and entered judgment in favor of Lilly.

Lilly sells the drug Alimta (“pemetrexed”), a chemotherapy drug, to treat various types of lung cancer, including mesothelioma. However, certain side effects were troublesome, including treatment-related hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicity. Deaths among some patients were attributed to treatment with pemetrexed. In response to this concern, Lilly took the unusual step of mandating supplementation of the pemetrexed protocol with two vitamins – folic acid and vitamin B₁₂. The patentability of that idea was the focus of a patent challenge – this litigation – by five manufacturers of generic drugs.

Lilly’s ‘209 Patent describes a method of using an antifolate, pemetrexed, with vitamins. Antifolates are a type of chemotherapy drug used to treat certain types of cancer. They work by competing with folates, a class of essential nutrients that includes folic acid. By interfering with the action of folates, antifolates thereby deprive cancer cells of the DNA precursors they need to proliferate.

The generic challengers contended in part that the patent on the combined therapy is invalid, arguing that someone knowledgeable about both nutrition and medicine could have easily concluded that supplementation with B₁₂ and folate might alleviate certain side effects of pemetrexed.

Lilly, in contrast, argued that the vitamin regimen was not only counterintuitive when it was proposed, it was called “crazy” by a leading cancer doctor before testing showed its benefits.

Lilly prevailed. The court found that Defendants failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims of the ‘209 Patent were invalid for obviousness, obviousness-type double patenting, inadequate description or lack of enablement. Thus, the ‘209 Patent is valid and enforceable.

The ‘209 Patent is presumed to be valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282. Defendants, as the parties challenging the validity of the ‘209 Patent, bore the burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.

Defendants’ first contention was that the ‘209 Patent was obvious. To prove obviousness, they would have to show by clear and convincing evidence that the differences between the claims and the prior art at the time the invention were such that, considered as a whole, the claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in that subject matter.

Obviousness is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual findings. Such findings include: 1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective considerations of non-obviousness such as commercial success and satisfaction of a long-felt need. Moreover, it is insufficient that prior art merely includes separate references to the subject matter of a subsequent patent claim. Instead, obviousness requires the additional showing that a POSA would have combined those elements of the prior art. Thus, Defendants in this case bore the burden of proving that a POSA would have had reason to (1) administer folic acid pretreatment with pemetrexed, (2) administer vitamin B₁₂ pretreatment with pemetrexed, and (3) administer each of them according to the doses and schedules indicated in the ‘209 Patent.

The court first found that folic pretreatment with pemetrexed was not obvious. Among its findings were that the prior studies on mice would not have led a POSA to consider such supplementation. There would have been considerable difficulty in comparing studies on the combined treatment in mice with effects likely to be observed in humans, given the differences between humans and mice. One substantial difference was that mice have much higher requirements for folic acid. As an additional confounding factor, the studies on mice given low-folate diets were only possible because the mice were also given an antibiotic to prevent bacteria in the intestines of the mice from making folic acid that would otherwise raise a mouse’s level of folic acid.

These and other differences would have represented substantial obstacles in making the leap from the prior state of understanding of vitamin supplementation with antifolates to the claims of the ‘209 Patent. The court thus held that a POSA reviewing the prior art, instead of concluding that the supplementation was useful, would have likely concluded that supplementation decreased the efficacy of the drug. Consequently, those prior studies would have resulted in a “teaching away” from the claimed invention by discouraging a POSA from pursuing vitamin supplementation in conjunction with pemetrexed.

The court concluded that, likewise, vitamin B₁₂ pretreatment with pemetrexed was not obvious and that, as of June 1999, a POSA would have expected that vitamin B₁₂ would counteract the efficacy of antifolates. Instead, the court held that the benefit of using B₁₂ in conjunction with pemetrexed was not discovered until late 1999, when a mathematician for Lilly ran an extensive statistical analysis of data from patients in the worldwide, phase-III pemetrexed trial.

The court next held that the doses and schedules within the claims asserted by Lilly were not obvious. The vitamin dosing regimens attempted in the prior art, which contained folic acid only, reduced the efficacy of pemetrexed as compared to unsupplemented trials. However, the regimen in the ‘209 Patent actually improved the efficacy of the drug over unsupplemented clinical trials. While normally a change in temperature, concentration or both would be an unpatentable modification, patentability may be found if the results of such a change are “unexpectedly good.” The court held that the changes resulting from the methods described in the ‘209 Patent fell within this exception to the general rule.

The scheduling of the pretreatment with the vitamin supplementation was also deemed non-obvious by Judge Walton Pratt, as prior studies had shown that administration of folic acid one week prior to the administration of lometrexol (another chemotherapy agent) reduced the efficacy of the drug and was a cause of concern for oncologists. Based upon the results of that study, a POSA would have not have anticipated a likelihood of success with pretreatment with vitamins.

In its evaluation of non-obviousness, the court last considered secondary indicia of non-obviousness of the asserted claims of the ‘209 Patent. These indicia include the commercial success of the invention at issue and its satisfaction of a long-felt need; skepticism or disbelief before the invention; failure of others and evidence of unexpected properties. It found these indicia supported a conclusion of non-obviousness.

Finally, the court held that the claims at issue were not invalid for obviousness-type double patenting, concluding that the claims asserted in the ‘209 Patent were patentably distinct from Lilly’s U.S. Patent No. 5,217,974 (the “‘974 Patent”). The court included in its reasoning that the ‘974 Patent discloses, inter alia, the use of a much greater amount of folic acid, does not reference pemetrexed and includes nothing about pretreating with vitamin B₁₂.

Consequently, the court found that the asserted claims of the ‘209 Patent were valid and enforceable, and entered judgment in favor of Lilly and against Defendants.

Practice Tip #1:

Patent-infringement litigation between brand-name manufacturers and generic-drug makers is common. In a typical lawsuit, a company that wishes to sell a generic version of a brand-name drug, usually a widely used drug, will try to invalidate the patent on the drug, in the hopes that it could then offer the same drug in generic form.

This litigation was different from traditional patent litigation. The original patent on Alimta, administered as a stand-alone treatment, protects only Alimta’s active ingredient. That patent will expire in 2017. However, the focus of the current litigation was on the combination treatment – a “method-of-use patent” – that involves both Alimta and the vitamin regimen.

Practice Tip #2:

Because the ‘209 Patent was upheld, the period of exclusivity for Alimta, in conjunction with the vitamin supplementation, now expires in 2022. In 2013, Lilly earned revenues of $2.7 billion from global sales of Alimta. Thus, the extra five years of patent protection may result in additional revenues in excess of $10 billion for Lilly.

July 18, 2014

Indiana Patent and Trademark Litigation: American Archery Accused of Patent and Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – Indiana intellectual property attorneys for SOP Services, Inc. of Las Vegas, Nevada and Bear Archery, Inc. of Evansville, Indiana (collectively “Bear Archery”) initiated an infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that American Archery, LLC of Suwanee, Georgia infringed “Arrow Rest,” Patent No. RE38,096; “Arrow Rest System and Method,” Patent No. 6,978,775; WHISKER BISCUIT ARROW REST, Trademark Registration No. 2,501,255; and WHISKER BISCUIT, Trademark Registration No. 3,312,392, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Bear Archery is in the business of researching, developing, designing, manufacturing, and selling archery products. Its business includes traditional archery bows, compound bows, bow sights, arrow rests, arrows and arrow components, archery targets, and various other archery accessories. American Archery is in the business of selling hunting products and accessories, including archery products.

At issue in this Indiana intellectual property dispute are arrow rests for mounting to archery bows. The lawsuit asserts claims of patent infringement, trademark infringement, as well as false and deceptive labeling and unfair competition.

American Archery is accused of selling counterfeit arrow rests, both through its website and through online auction sites. Specifically, Bear Archery asserts that the “ready to shoot” packages offered by American Archery advertise that they include a genuine Bear Archery Whisker Biscuit® arrow rest as part of the preassembled bow. However, Plaintiffs state, the bow that a consumer receives instead includes a pre-installed counterfeit arrow rest.

There are two patents at issue in this litigation: “Arrow Rest,” Patent No. RE38,096 (the “‘096 patent”) and “Arrow Rest System and Method,” Patent No. 6,978,775 (the “‘775 patent”). The ‘096 patent and the ‘775 patent (collectively “the patents-in-suit”) are owned by SOP Services. Bear Archery has been granted an exclusive license to the patents-in-suit. Plaintiffs accuse American Archery of having willfully, intentionally and deliberately infringed the patents-in-suit by offering the allegedly counterfeit items.

In addition to patent infringement assertions, this Indiana litigation also includes allegations of trademark infringement. Bear Archery contends that it owns trademark rights for the Whisker Biscuit mark, indicating that it has used the mark with its arrow rest products since at least 1999. It claims that consumers have come to recognize the mark as identifying Bear Archery’s arrow rest products. It further asserts that it owns a trademark on “Whisker Biscuit Arrow Rest” for archery equipment, namely arrow-rest devices. Bear Archery claims that American Archery’s use of the marks is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to origin, sponsorship or approval and therefore constitute trademark infringement and counterfeiting in violation of Section 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 et seq. and the common law.

Bear Archery includes a final claim of “false and deceptive labeling and unfair competition” under Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. §1125 and the common law.

Bear Archery, via its Indiana intellectual property lawyers, asks the court for the following relief:

A. A judgment of infringement of the ‘096 patent and the ‘775 patent;
B. A judgment that the use of the “WHISKER BISCUIT” mark in Defendant’s commercial advertising and sales in the Unites States creates a likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception among relevant consumers and therefore infringes Plaintiff’s trademarks;
C. A judgment that Defendant has engaged in counterfeiting with respect to Plaintiffs’ trademarks;
D. An order permanently restraining Defendant or any of its agents from further acts of infringement of the patents-in-suit;
E. An order permanently restraining Defendant or any of its agents from engaging in misleading advertising of products or services bearing or resembling the “WHISKER BISCUIT” mark that have caused actual confusion, mistake or deception of the public;
F. An order that all infringing devices or materials in the possession of, or subject to control by, Defendant or its agents be delivered up and destroyed or altered to eliminate any possibility any further infringement;
G. An award of damages not less than a reasonably royalty, adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for Defendant’s acts of infringement under 35 U.S.C. §284;
H. An award to Plaintiffs of treble Defendant’s profits under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) and (b);
I. An award to Plaintiffs of statutory damages for counterfeiting up to $2,000,000, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c);
J. An order declaring that this is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 15 U.S.C. 1117 as a result of Defendant’s knowing and willful infringement of the patents-in-suit and the asserted trademarks, and awarding Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees;
K. An award of Plaintiffs’ costs, and/or expenses; and
L. Aw award of Defendant’s wrongful profits associated with its infringement of Plaintiffs’ patent and/or trademark rights.

Practice Tip: Bear Archery requested that eBay remove various auctions posted by Bear Archery on the grounds that the items for sale were counterfeit. Bear Archery indicates that eBay removed the auctions and notified American Archery that the auctions had been removed because they had been flagged as offering counterfeit goods. Bear Archery requested this under eBay’s Verified Rights Owner (“VeRO”) Program. The VeRO Program provides a mechanism for an owner of intellectual property to request the removal of eBay auctions that offer items that infringe that owner’s intellectual property rights.

July 17, 2014

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Brings Another Defendant into Effient Patent Infringement Litigation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – In conjunction with co-counsel from Washington, D.C., an Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana; Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd of Tokyo, Japan; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. of Parsippany, New Jersey; and Ube Industries, Ltd. of Yamaguchi, Japan sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that First Time US Generics LLC of Broomall, Pennsylvania infringed Effient® products, Patent Nos. 8,404,703 and 8,569,325 which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

This is a civil action for patent infringement. It arises out of the filing by Defendant First Time US Generics LLC (“FTUG”) of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic versions of two of Lilly’s pharmaceutical products, Effient® 5mg and Effient® 10mg tablets, prior to the expiration of Daiichi Sankyo’s and Ube’s U.S. patents, which purportedly cover methods of using Effient® products. Plaintiffs assert that Lilly holds an exclusive license to these products. DSI currently co-promotes Effient® products in the United States with Lilly.

Effient® products were approved by the FDA for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events in certain patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who are to be managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, or angioplasty). The instructions accompanying Effient® products state that patients taking Effient® products should also take aspirin. The use of Effient® products in combination with aspirin for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with ACS who are to be managed with PCI is covered by the claims of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents.

FTUG has submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (the “FTUG ANDA”) to the FDA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j), seeking approval to market a generic version of Lilly’s product for oral administration (the “FTUG Products”) in the United States.

Plaintiffs assert that FTUG will knowingly include with the FTUG Products instructions for use that substantially copy the instructions for Effient® products, including instructions for administering the FTUG Products with aspirin as claimed in the ‘703 and ‘325 patents. Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that FTUG knows that the instructions that will accompany the FTUG Products will induce and/or contribute to others using the FTUG Products in the manner set forth in the instructions. Plaintiffs also contend that FTUG specifically intends that health care providers, and/or patients will use the FTUG Products in accordance with the instructions provided by FTUG to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents. FTUG therefore will actively induce and/or contribute to infringement of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents, state Plaintiffs.

In the complaint, the Indiana patent lawyer for Plaintiffs listed the following counts:

• Count I: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,404,703
• Count II: Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,404,703
• Count III: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,569,325
• Count IV: Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,569,325

Plaintiffs ask the court for judgment:

A. That FTUG has infringed or will infringe, after the FTUG ANDA is approved, one or more claims of the ‘703 patent;
B. That FTUG has infringed or will infringe, after the FTUG ANDA is approved, one or more claims of the ‘325 patent;
C. That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B), FTUG and its agents be permanently enjoined from making, using, selling or offering to sell either or both of the FTUG Products within the United States, or importing either or both of the FTUG Products into the United States prior to the expiration of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents;
D. That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A), the effective date of any approval of the FTUG ANDA under § 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 355(j)) shall not be earlier than the latest of the expiration dates of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents, including any extensions;
E. If FTUG commercially makes, uses, sells or offers to sell either or both of the FTUG Products within the United States, or imports either or both of the FTUG Products into the United States, prior to the expiration of either of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents, including any extensions, that Plaintiffs will be awarded monetary damages for those infringing acts to the fullest extent allowed by law and be awarded prejudgment interest based on those monetary damages;
F. That this case be deemed exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285
G. Declaring that the ‘703 patent remains valid and enforceable;
H. Declaring that the ‘325 patent remains valid and enforceable; and
I. That Plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.

Practice Tip:

In March 2014, Lilly et al. filed a 101-page complaint making similar accusations against more than thirty defendants: Accord Healthcare, Inc. USA; Accord Healthcare, Inc.; Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC; Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC; Amneal Pharmaceuticals Co. India Pvt. Ltd.; Aurobindo Pharma Limited; Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc.; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.; Glenmark Generics Inc., USA; Glenmark Generics Ltd.; Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; Hetero USA Inc.; Hetero Labs Limited; Hetero Labs Limited Unit V; Hetero Drugs Ltd.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Mylan Inc.; Mylan Laboratories Limited; Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.; Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Sun Pharma Global FZE; Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.; Sun Pharma Global Inc.; Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis plc; Actavis, Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. d/b/a Zydus Cadila.

FTUG is the latest of addition to Lilly’s list of defendants in the Effient litigation. In contrast to the March complaint against 30-plus mostly unrelated defendants, FTUG, as well as the other subsequent unrelated defendants, have been added via separate complaints alleging patent infringement.

July 16, 2014

Indiana Patent Litigation – Stopinc AG Sues J.W. Hicks Inc. for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – An Indiana patent attorney for Stopinc Aktiengesellschaft of Hünenberg, Switzerland sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that J. W. Hicks Inc. of Merrillville, Indiana infringed “Slide Gate for a Container Containing Molten Metal,” Patent No. 6,422,435, which has been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Plaintiff Stopinc Aktiengesellschaft (“Stopinc AG”) asserts that it is the owner by assignment of Patent No. 6,422,435 (the “‘435 patent”). It charges Defendant J. W. Hicks Inc. with infringing upon the patent by, inter alia, importing into the United States and selling its product, known both as the OMEGA Slidegate Systems and also as the TITAN Slidegate, that infringes at least claims 1, 8, 11 and 12 of the ‘435 patent. Stopinc AG also asserts that J. W. Hicks Inc. has induced and contributed to the infringement of the patent by others. Finally, Stopinc AG contends that Defendant’s acts of infringement and inducement to infringe are willful, knowing and deliberate.

A single count – patent infringement – is listed in Stopinc AG’s complaint, which was filed by an Indiana patent lawyer. The Indiana court is asked for the following relief:

• An injunction prohibiting Defendant and its agents from marketing, importing, offering for sale, selling, advertising or promoting or distributing in the United States any products that infringe the ‘435 patent;
• An Order that all infringing products, as well as all means for producing, advertising or promoting those products, be destroyed;
• An Order that all infringing products already distributed be recalled;
• Damages, including Defendant’s profits, as well as for Plaintiff’s lost sales, attorney’s fees, and interest; and
• That damages be trebled.

Practice Tip: Patent infringement can be demonstrated under two general theories: literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. An assertion of “literal infringement” will require a showing that every element recited in a claim has identical counterpart in the accused device or method. A claim may also be infringed under the “doctrine of equivalents” if some other element of the accused device or method performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same manner, to achieve substantially the same result.

July 14, 2014

Indiana Patent Litigation: HEC Pharm Added to Effient Patent Infringement Litigation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana; Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd of Tokyo, Japan; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. of Parsippany, New Jersey; and Ube Industries, Ltd. of Yamaguchi, Japan sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. of China and HEC Pharm USA Inc. of Princeton, New Jersey (collectively, “HEC Pharm”) infringed Lilly’s patented Effient® product, Patent No. 8,404,703, which has been issued by the United States Patent Office.

This lawsuit adds another defendant, HEC Pharm, to Lilly’s Indiana patent litigation regarding Effient. In these Effient patent-defense lawsuits, Lilly et al. allege infringement of certain patents related to the pharmaceutical Effient. At issue in the litigation against HEC Pharm is only one of the Effient-related patents, 8,404,703 “Medicinal Compositions Containing Aspirin,” (the “‘703 patent”).

This complaint asserts patent infringement arising out of the filing by HEC Pharm of an Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDA”) with the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic versions of two pharmaceutical products – Effient 5mg and Effient 10mg tablets – prior to the expiration of the ‘703 patent. These patents cover a method of using Effient products for which Lilly claims an exclusively license.

Effient products were approved by the FDA for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events in certain patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who are to be managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, or angioplasty). Effient products contain prasugrel hydrochloride, which is also known as 5-[(1RS)-2-cyclopropyl-1-(2-fluorophenyl)-2-oxoethyl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrothieno[3,2-c]pyridin-2-yl acetate hydrochloride.

The instructions accompanying Effient products state that patients taking Effient products should also take aspirin. The use of Effient products in combination with aspirin for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with ACS who are to be managed with PCI is allegedly covered by the claims of the ‘703 patent.

HEC Pharm is accused of planning to infringe the patents-in-suit by including with its products instructions for use that substantially copy the instructions for Effient products, including instructions for administering HEC Pharm’s products with aspirin as claimed in the ‘703 patent.

Plaintiffs contend that HEC Pharm knows that the instructions that HEC Pharm intends to include with its products will induce and/or contribute to others using those products in the allegedly infringing manner set forth in the instructions. Moreover, Lilly et al. also contend that HEC Pharm specifically intends for health care providers, and/or patients to use HEC Pharm’s products in accordance with the instructions provided by HEC Pharm and that such use will directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘703 patent. Thus, state Plaintiffs, HEC Pharm’s actions will actively induce and/or contribute to infringement of the ‘703 patent.

The complaint, filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, lists two counts:

• Count I: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,404,703
• Count II: Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,404,703

Plaintiffs ask the court for judgment:

• That HEC Pharm has infringed the ‘703 patent and/or will infringe, actively induce infringement of, and/or contribute to infringement by others of one or more claims of the ‘703 patent;
• That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B), HEC Pharm be permanently enjoined from making, using, selling or offering to sell any of its accused products within the United States, or, where applicable, importing accused products into the United States prior to the expiration of the ‘703 patent;
• That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A), the effective date of any approval of the HEC Pharm ANDA under § 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 355(j)) shall not be earlier than the later of the expiration dates of the ‘703 patent, including any extensions;
• If HEC Pharm commercially makes, uses, sells or offers to sell any accused product within the United States, or, where applicable, imports any accused product into the United States, prior to the expiration of either of the ‘703 patent, including any extensions, that Plaintiffs be awarded monetary damages for those infringing acts to the fullest extent allowed by law and be awarded prejudgment interest based on those monetary damages;
• That the case be deemed exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
• That the ‘703 patent remains valid and enforceable;
• That Plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.

Practice Tip #1: The Effient litigation also involves Patent No. 5,288,726, “Tetrahydrothienopyridine Derivatives, Furo and Pyrrolo Analogs Thereof and Their Preparation and Uses for Inhibiting Blood Platelet Aggregation,” and Patent No. 8,569,325, “Method of Treatment with Coadministration of Aspirin and Prasugrel.”

Practice Tip #2: The FDA’s ANDA process for generic drugs has been abbreviated such that, in general, the generic drug seeking approval does not require pre-clinical (animal and in vitro) testing. Instead, the process focuses on establishing that the product is bioequivalent to the “innovator” drug that has already undergone the full approval process.

The statute that created the abbreviated process, however, had also created some interesting jurisdictional issues with respect to declaratory judgments. For an interesting look at some of the issues, see here
Continue reading

July 10, 2014

Indiana Patent Litigation: CeraMedic Sues Zimmer for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Indiana patent lawyers for CeraMedic LLC of Plano, Texas sued for biolox picture.jpg patent infringement in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and Zimmer, Inc., both of Warsaw, Indiana (collectively “Zimmer”), infringed “Sintered Al₂O₃ Material, Process for Its Production and Use of the Material,” Patent No. 6,066,584, which has been issued by the United States Patent Office.

Patent No. 6,066,584 (the “‘584 patent”) relates to the field of ceramics and concerns sintered Al₂O₃ compositions and methods for the use of such material as medical implants or tool material. Similar litigation was also recently commenced against Biomet by Indiana patent attorneys for CeraMedic.

The ‘584 patent was issued in May 2000 to Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Angewandten Forschung e.V., Germany (“Fraunhofer”), Europe’s largest application-oriented research organization. CeraMedic states that Fraunhofer, the assignee of over 1,500 U.S. patents, assigned ownership of the ‘584 patent to CeraMedic in early 2014.

CeraMedic indicates that non-party CeramTec GmbH (“CeramTec”) developed and manufactures Biolox delta, (pictured) an aluminum oxide matrix composite ceramic consisting of approximately 82% alumina (Al₂O₃), 17% zirconia (ZrO₂), and other trace elements.

The allegations Defendant Zimmer include that it “designs, develops, manufactures, offers for sale, sells, uses, distributes, and markets hip implants, many of which include” CeramTec’s Biolox product and that such actions constitute infringement of the ‘584 patent. Zimmer is accused of infringing the ‘584 patent directly, literally, and/or by equivalents.

The complaint, filed by Indiana patent counsel, lists a single count: infringement of the ‘584 patent. CeraMedic asks the court for a judgment against Zimmer determining that Zimmer has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘584 patent; enjoining Zimmer and its agents from further infringing the ‘584 patent; ordering Zimmer to account for and pay to CeraMedic all damages suffered by CeraMedic as a consequence of Zimmer’s alleged infringement of the ‘584 patent, together with interest and costs; trebling or otherwise increasing CeraMedic’s damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 upon a finding that the asserted infringement by Zimmer of the ‘584 patent was deliberate and willful; and declaring that this case is exceptional and awarding to CeraMedic its costs and attorneys’ fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Practice Tip:

Zimmer has been sued for patent infringement before. One patent lawsuit, Stryker v. Zimmer, is illustrative of the potential cost of willful infringement. In that litigation, the jury found that Zimmer had committed patent infringement and awarded $70 million in damages. The jury also held that Zimmer’s infringement had been willful. Plaintiff Stryker asked the court for, inter alia, attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, if the prevailing party establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the case is “exceptional,” the court may exercise its discretion to award attorneys’ fees. The court in this case cited various factors that could be used in determining whether a case was exceptional, for example: “willful infringement, fraud or inequitable conduct in procuring the patent, misconduct during litigation, vexatious or unjustified litigation, [or] conduct that violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.” The court awarded Stryker’s attorneys’ fees, holding that that the jury’s finding of willful infringement weighed heavily in favor of such an award (“indeed, when a trial court denies attorney fees in spite of a finding of willful infringement, the court must explain why the case is not ‘exceptional’ within the meaning of the statute.”)

The court also evaluated whether an award of enhanced damages was warranted. Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, “the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed” at trial. For this determination, the court referred to Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc. In Read, the Federal Circuit held that the “paramount determination in deciding to grant enhancement and the amount thereof is the egregiousness of the defendant’s conduct based on all the facts and circumstances.” In evaluating the egregiousness of the defendant’s conduct, courts typically rely on the nine Read factors, which are:

1. whether the infringer deliberately copied the patentee’s ideas or design;
2. whether the infringer investigated the scope of the patent and formed a good faith belief that it was invalid or not infringed;
3. the infringer’s conduct during litigation;
4. the infringer’s size and financial condition;
5. closeness of the case;
6. duration of the infringing conduct;
7. remedial actions, if any, taken by the infringer;
8. the infringer’s motivation for harm; and
9. whether the infringer attempted to conceal its misconduct.

The court found that all nine Read factors favored substantial enhancement and trebled the jury’s award of damages. The court stated, “Zimmer chose a high-risk/high-reward strategy of competing immediately and aggressively in the pulsed lavage market and opted to worry about the potential legal consequences later.” In total, Zimmer was ordered to pay Stryker over $228 million.

July 3, 2014

Indiana Patent Litigation: CeraMedic Sues Biomet for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Indiana patent attorneys for CeraMedic LLC of Plano, Texas filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Biomet, Inc. of Warsaw, Indiana infringed “Sintered Al₂O₃ Material, Process for Its Production and Use of the Material“, Patent No. 6,066,584, which has been issued by the United States Patent Office.

This Indiana patent litigation concerns Patent No. 6,066,584 (the “‘584 patent”), which relates to the field of ceramics and concerns sintered Al₂O₃ compositions and methods for the use of such material as medical implants or tool material.

CeraMedic indicates that non-party CeramTec GmbH (“CeramTec”) developed and manufactures BIOLOX delta, an aluminum oxide matrix composite ceramic consisting of approximately 82% alumina (Al₂O₃), 17% zirconia (ZrO₂), and other trace elements.

CeraMedic then states that Defendant Biomet “designs, develops, manufactures, offers for sale, sells, uses, distributes, and markets hip implants, many of which include” CeramTec’s BIOLOX delta and that such actions constitute infringement of the ‘584 patent. Biomet is accused of infringing the ‘584 patent directly, literally, and/or by equivalents.

The complaint, filed by Indiana patent lawyers, lists a single count: infringement of the ‘584 patent. CeraMedic asks the court for a judgment against Biomet determining that Biomet has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘584 patent; enjoining Biomet and its agents from further infringing the ‘584 patent; ordering Biomet to account for and pay to CeraMedic all damages suffered by CeraMedic as a consequence of Biomet’s alleged infringement of the ‘584 patent, together with interest and costs; trebling or otherwise increasing CeraMedic’s damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 upon a finding that the asserted infringement by Biomet of the ‘584 patent was deliberate and willful; and declaring that this case is exceptional and awarding to CeraMedic its costs and attorneys’ fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Practice Tip:

The Federal Circuit has somewhat tempered the threat of a finding of willfulness in patent infringement in recent years. In 2007, sitting en banc, it established a heightened standard for willfulness that included an inquiry into whether a defendant’s actions were “objectively reckless” in In re Seagate Technology LLC.

In 2012, in Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates Inc., the Federal Circuit removed the threat of findings of willfulness by “runaway juries,” including the uncertainties inherent in the fact that such jury findings would be delayed for many years as patent litigation made its way to trial and finally to a jury verdict. In that case, the Federal Court held that the threshold determination for willful infringement is a question of law and, as such, is to be decided by the trial court.

Nonetheless, compensatory damages in patent infringement litigation can reach seven, eight or even nine figures. Given that a finding of willfulness can treble those damages, patent infringement defendants must not take assertions of willfulness lightly.

June 30, 2014

Indiana Patent Litigation – Lilly Adds Panacea Biotec to List of Patent Infringement Defendants

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana; Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd of Tokyo, Japan; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. of Parsippany, New Jersey; and Ube Industries, Ltd. of Yamaguchi, Japan sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Panacea Biotec, Ltd. of New Delhi, India (“Panacea”) infringed Effient® products, Patent Nos. 8,404,703 and 8,569,325, which have been issued by the United States Patent Office.

This lawsuit adds another defendant, Panacea, to Lilly’s Indiana patent litigation. In these “Effient” patent-defense lawsuits, Lilly et al. assert allegations of infringement of Effient. At issue in the Panacea litigation are Effient-related patents 8,404,703 “Medicinal Compositions Containing Aspirin,” (the “‘703 patent”) and 8,569,325 “Method of Treatment with Coadministration of Aspirin and Prasugrel” (the “‘325 patent”).

This complaint asserts patent infringement arising out of the filing by Panacea of an Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDA”) with the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic versions of two pharmaceutical products – Effient 5mg and Effient 10mg tablets – prior to the expiration of the ‘703 patent and the ‘325 patent. These patents cover two Effient products and/or methods of using Effient products and for which Lilly claims an exclusively license.

Panacea is accused of planning to infringe the patents-in-suit by including with its products instructions for use that substantially copy the instructions for Effient products, including instructions for administering Panacea’s products with aspirin as claimed in the ‘703 and ‘325 patents.

Plaintiffs contend that Panacea knows that the instructions that Panacea intends to include with its products will induce and/or contribute to others using those products in the allegedly infringing manner set forth in the instructions. Moreover, Lilly et al. also contend that Panacea specifically intends for health care providers, and/or patients to use Panacea’s products in accordance with the instructions provided by Panacea and that such use will directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents. Thus, state Plaintiffs, Panacea’s actions will actively induce and/or contribute to infringement of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents.

The complaint, filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, lists four counts:

• Count I: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,404,703
• Count II: Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,404,703
• Count III: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,569,325
• Count IV: Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,569,325

Plaintiffs ask the court for judgment:

• That Panacea has infringed the ‘703 patent and/or will infringe, actively induce infringement of, and/or contribute to infringement by others of one or more claims of the ‘703 patent;
• That Panacea has infringed the ‘325 patent and/or will infringe, actively induce infringement of, and/or contribute to infringement by others of one or more claims of the ‘325 patent;
• That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B), Panacea be permanently enjoined from making, using, selling or offering to sell any of its accused products within the United States, or, where applicable, importing accused products into the United States prior to the expiration of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents;
• That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A), the effective date of any approval of the Panacea ANDA under § 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 355(j)) shall not be earlier than the later of the expiration dates of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents, including any extensions;
• If Panacea commercially makes, uses, sells or offers to sell any accused product within the United States, or, where applicable, imports any accused product into the United States, prior to the expiration of either of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents, including any extensions, that Plaintiffs be awarded monetary damages for those infringing acts to the fullest extent allowed by law and be awarded prejudgment interest based on those monetary damages;
• That the case be deemed exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
• That the ‘703 patent remains valid and enforceable;
• That the ‘325 patent remains valid and enforceable; and
• That Plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.

Practice Tip: In March 2014, Lilly et al. filed a 101-page complaint making similar accusations against more than thirty defendants: Accord Healthcare, Inc. USA; Accord Healthcare, Inc.; Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC; Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC; Amneal Pharmaceuticals Co. India Pvt. Ltd.; Aurobindo Pharma Limited; Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc.; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.; Glenmark Generics Inc., USA; Glenmark Generics Ltd.; Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; Hetero USA Inc.; Hetero Labs Limited; Hetero Labs Limited Unit V; Hetero Drugs Ltd.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Mylan Inc.; Mylan Laboratories Limited; Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.; Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Sun Pharma Global FZE; Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.; Sun Pharma Global Inc.; Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis plc; Actavis, Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. d/b/a Zydus Cadila.

May 28, 2014

Indiana Patent Law: Anchor Fails to Meet its Burden to Support Transfer of Indiana Patent Infringement Litigation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Magistrate Judge Roger Cosbey of the Northern District of Indiana denied the motion for transfer filed by patent attorneys for Anchor Packaging, Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri (“Anchor”). Anchor sought a transfer of the declaratory judgment action filed by Mullinix Packages, Inc. of Fort Wayne, Indiana (“Mullinix”) to the Eastern District of Missouri where Anchor has a related, but later-filed infringement suit pending against Mullinix. Both patent infringement lawsuits pertain to the alleged infringement by Mullinix of Patent Nos. D679,587; D675,919 and D570,681, which were issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Anchor and Mullinix are competitors in the commercial packaging industry. Prior to 2010, Anchor had been the primary supplier of mashed potato containers to Bob Evans Farms, Inc., a position now assumed by Mullinix. According to Mullinix, mashed potato container sales peak dramatically during the fourth quarter of the year and Mullinix’s ability to meet Bob Evans’s demand for containers during this period is critical to maintaining a successful relationship. It was around this time that patent lawyers for Anchor demanded that Mullinix cease and desist selling a tray that Anchor asserted was of a substantially similar design as trays claimed in three of Anchor’s patents.

While the cease-and-desist letter sent by Anchor’s patent counsel indicated that Anchor’s “interest is a resolution of this matter and not litigation,” Mullinix filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the Northern District of Indiana shortly thereafter. Several weeks later, Anchor responded by filing a complaint for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Missouri.

In this opinion, Magistrate Judge Roger Cosbey, writing for the Northern District of Indiana, addresses Anchor’s motion to transfer Mullinix’s Indiana complaint for declaratory judgment for patent non-infringement to Missouri.

Anchor argued that the case should be transferred because (1) Mullinix filed its declaratory judgment action in anticipation of Anchor’s infringement suit, (2) a critical non-party witness is outside this Court’s subpoena power, but within the range of the Eastern District of Missouri, and (3) the Eastern District of Missouri is a more convenient forum.

The court evaluated Anchor’s request for transfer under § 1404(a) under precedent set by the Seventh Circuit. Under § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case if the moving party shows that: (1) venue was proper in the transferor district, (2) venue and jurisdiction would be proper in the transferee district, and (3) the transfer will serve in the convenience of the parties and the witnesses as well as the interests of justice.

As neither party disputed that both the Indiana and Missouri courts have jurisdiction and are proper venues, the court focused its analysis on the third factor. As the party requesting transfer, Anchor has the burden to show that the Eastern District of Missouri would be “clearly more convenient” than the Northern District of Indiana. In evaluating convenience, the factors to consider are: “(1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) the situs of the material events, (3) the relative ease of access to sources of proof, (4) the convenience of the parties, and (5) the convenience of the witnesses.”

The first factor, the plaintiff’s choice of forum, was held to be neutral. In general, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to substantial deference, particularly where the chosen forum is the plaintiff’s home forum. However, the court found that this factor did not weigh in either direction. In this case, there are two plaintiffs in two different fora. As a result, one of them will necessarily be disturbed.

The evaluation of the situs of the material events weighed against transfer. In patent infringement actions “the situs of the injury is the location, or locations, at which the infringing activity directly impacts on the interests of the patentee.” Mullinix is headquartered in Fort Wayne, Indiana, which is in the Northern District of Indiana, and keeps its documents pertaining to the accused infringing products in Fort Wayne. Additionally, two of the individuals who worked on the accused infringing products work and reside within the district.

For similar reasons, the court held the third factor, relative ease of access to sources of proof, to weigh against transfer.

The court briefly addressed the fourth factor, the convenience of the parties, noting that there was no way to avoid inconveniencing either one party or the other. In such a circumstance, the court held that “when the inconvenience of the alternative venues is comparable there is no[] basis for a change of venue; the tie is awarded to the plaintiff[.]”

Finally, the court addressed the fifth factor, the convenience of non-party witnesses, noting that this element was “often considered the most important factor in the transfer analysis.” The court noted with some displeasure that the parties had perhaps been disingenuous in arguing this factor. After a discussion of the evidence that had been submitted, it concluded that the parties had failed to provide it with much enlightenment on the subject and, as a result, the court was largely left to speculate about the convenience of non-party witnesses. The court thus held that this analysis-of-transfer factor was neutral.

In sum, it was found that the convenience factors did not support transfer.

The court also evaluated the interests-of-justice inquiry. On the whole, these factors – the speed to trial, familiarity with the applicable law, desirability of resolving controversies and relation of each community to the controversy – also weighed against transfer.

Finally, the court addressed the first-filed analysis under Federal Circuit precedent, which governs declaratory judgment actions in patent cases. Given that no “sound reason” for transfer had been found in the earlier analysis, court dismissed the first-filed analysis as “ancillary” and largely non-dispositive.

Practice Tip #1: The first-to-file rule is a doctrine of federal comity that generally favors pursuing only the first-filed action when multiple lawsuits involving the same claims are filed in different jurisdictions. It was designed to avoid conflicting decisions and promote judicial efficiency. Finding an exception to the first-to-file rule requires a “sound reason that would make it unjust or inefficient to continue the first-filed action.”

Practice Tip #2: A court may also consider the extent to which a declaratory judgment action is anticipatory and motivated by forum shopping. However, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that a finding that a filing was anticipatory does not in itself constitute sufficient legal reason to transfer or dismiss the first-filed case.

April 28, 2014

Indiana Patent Litigation: CleanTech Sues Pacific Ethanol Magic Valley

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – A patent attorney for GS CleanTech Corporation of Alpharetta, Georgia (“CleanTech”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the District of Idaho alleging that Pacific Ethanol Magic Valley, LLC of Burley, Idaho (“Pacific”); ICM, Inc. of Colwich, Kansas; and David J. Vander Griend of Wichita, Kansas infringed Patent Nos. 7,601,858 – “Method of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems“; 8,008,516 – “Method of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems“; 8,008,517 – “Method of recovering Oil From Thin Stillage“; and 8,283,484 – “Method of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems“, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office. The case was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana as part of Multidistrict Litigation No. 2181.

This litigation began with an assertion of patent infringement by CleanTech of the ‘858 patent, which was issued on October 13, 2009. CleanTech sued numerous Defendants alleging infringement of that patent shortly after its issuance. The Defendants accused of patent infringement in prior patent infringement litigation include: Big River Resources Galva, LLC; Big River Resources West Burlington, LLC; Cardinal Ethanol, LLC; ICM, Inc.; LincolnLand Agri-Energy, LLC; David J. Vander Griend; Iroquois Bio-Energy Co., LLC; Al-Corn Clean Fuel; Blue Flint Ethanol, LLC; ACE Ethanol, LLC; Lincolnway Energy, LLC; United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC; Bushmills Ethanol, Inc.; Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co.; Heartland Corn Products, Adkins Energy, LLC, Little Sioux Corn Processors, LLLP; Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC; Western New York Energy, LLC; Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC; Pacific Ethanol, Inc.; Guardian Energy, LLC and Pacific Ethanol Stockton LLC. This Indiana patent lawsuit is being overseen in the Southern District of Indiana pursuant to the provisions for Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”).

Since September 29, 2011, when the court overseeing the MDL issued its order on claim construction with respect to the disputed claims of the ‘858 patent, patentees CleanTech and its parent GreenShift Corp. have also asserted infringement by some of the allegedly infringing Defendants of four additional patents related to the ‘858 patent: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,008,516 (the “‘516 patent”), 8,008,517 (the “‘517 patent”), 8,283,484 (the “‘484 patent”) and, the newest addition, 8,168,037 (“the ‘037 patent”), (the ‘858, ‘516, ‘517, ‘484 and ‘037 patents are, collectively, the “‘858 patent family” or “the patents-in-suit”). Four of the patents in the “‘858 patent family” – the ‘858 patent, the ‘516 patent, the ‘517 patent, and ‘484 patent – have purportedly been infringed by Pacific.

CleanTech claims that the methods claimed increase the efficiency and economy of recovering corn oil. CleanTech’s patented methods recover corn oil by evaporating, concentrating and mechanically separating thin stillage (“stillage”), a byproduct of ethanol produced from corn, into two components: corn oil and a post-recovery syrup (“syrup”) with most of its corn oil removed.

In one embodiment, the patented method comprises initially processing the whole stillage by mechanically separating (such as by using a centrifugal decanter) the whole stillage into distillers wet grains and thin stillage, and then introducing the thin stillage into an evaporator to form a concentrated syrup byproduct. Prior to recombining the then-concentrated syrup with the distillers wet grains, the syrup is introduced into a second mechanical separator, such as a second centrifuge, which is different from the centrifuge that mechanically separated the whole stillage into distillers wet grains and thin stillage. This second centrifuge separates corn oil from the syrup thereby allowing for the recovery of usable corn oil. The syrup that exits the centrifuge is then recombined with the distillers wet grain and dried in a dryer. The corn oil that is extracted from the syrup can be used for various purposes such as feedstock for producing biodiesel.

In this current lawsuit, initiated in the District of Idaho, subsidiary GS CleanTech Corp. is the sole Plaintiff. A patent lawyer for CleanTech asserts the following counts against Pacific:

• Count I: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858
• Count II: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,008,516
• Count III: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,008,517
• Count IV: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,283,484

CleanTech asks the court for preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting further infringement of the patents-in-suit; an award of damages adequate to compensate CleanTech for the infringement that has occurred, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the inventions of the patents-in-suit as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with prejudgment interest from the date the infringement began; and an award to CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284, 285 and 154(d).

Practice Tip: More than thirty ethanol-production plants have executed installation and licensing agreements with GreenShift Corp., the parent company of CleanTech, for its corn-oil extraction system. When deciding whether to avoid the potential of being included as an additional defendant in ongoing patent infringement litigation, it’s useful to consult an experienced patent attorney to evaluate the possibility of licensing rights to use the patent(s)-in-suit.