By Suresh Pillai --
Jury Finds AGA Guilty of Infringement in Medtronic Dispute
A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled that AGA Medical Corp. infringed Medtronic Inc.'s patents for blood vessel occlusion devices, and has ordered AGA to pay Medtronic $57 million. This award is based upon the calculated amount of past damages as well as an 11 percent royalty for future sales of the products until 2018. The suit originated in 2007 with Medtronic asserting that three AGA products infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,306,141 and 5,067,957. The patents cover both metal alloy medical devices used to alleviate blood vessel occlusions and methods of treatment that utilize these devices. In an earlier ruling, the District Court granted AGA summary judgment of noninfringement on a third patent asserted by Medtronic, U.S. Patent No. 5,190,546.
The case will now proceed to a non-jury phase in order for the District Court to resolve other issues of invalidity and unenforceability. For more information on the decision, please see Medtronic's press release. Medtronic is currently asserting the same patents-in-suit against W.L. Gore & Associates in another pending Northern District of California case.
Court Denies Covidien Motion to Enjoin URL In Restoril® Suit
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Covidien's bid to enjoin URL Pharma from marketing or manufacturing a generic version of Restoril®, Covidien's sleep disorder drug. Covidien's patent-in suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,211,954, is directed to a low-dose temazepam composition. The original suit, filed by Covidien's predecessor Tyco Healthcare Group LP against URL predecessor Mutual Pharmaceuticals Co. Inc. and its parent company, Pharmaceutical Holdings Corp., was filed in 2007 and alleged patent infringement on the part of Mutual as a result of Mutual's filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application covering generic Restoril® (see "Court Report," March 26, 2007), One year later, Covidien began marketing and manufacturing an unbranded version of Restoril®. Meanwhile, URL awaited the expiration of the 30-month stay on its FDA approval before launching its own generic version.
Covidien's motion seeking an injunction was filed along with a motion seeking an extension of the 30-month stay. Having already denied Covidien's motion for extension, the District Court also denied Covidien's motion for an injunction, granting instead URL's motion for an entry of a judgment of noninfringement on partial findings. The District Court ruled that URL's generic formulation would not literally infringe the claims of the patent-in-suit.
Daiichi Prevails in Benicar® Infringement Suit Against Mylan
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has ruled that Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. is liable for infringement of Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd.'s U.S. Patent No. 5,616,599, which covers the active ingredient of the hypertension drug Benicar®. Daiichi Sankyo originally filed suit in 2007, alleging that Mylan, through the filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application directed towards generic formulations of Benicar®, infringed the '599 patent (see "Court Report," July 9, 2007). Mylan countered with a claim of invalidity based on obviousness.
The District Court disagreed with Mylan, however, finding the '599 patent to be nonobvious. The Court based its nonobviousness finding on the demonstrated commercial success of Benicar®. Daiichi Sankyo has issued a press release with more information on the decision.
Comments