This case involves Pozen Inc. suing Par Pharmaceutical Inc., Alphapharm Pty Ltd., and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. for patent infringement under the Hatch-Waxman Act, seeking to block FDA approval of generic versions of Treximet, a migraine treatment tablet combining sumatriptan and naproxen. After a bench trial, the court issued detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law on the patented therapy's development, which uses simultaneous dosing to address both initial migraine symptoms and relapse by targeting distinct biological mechanisms. The court concluded that the defendants' proposed products infringe the asserted claims of the '499 and '458 patents because they contain the same drug combination in a single tablet, meet the timing and duration requirements, and are marketed for migraine treatment. The reasoning relies on evidence that the invention was unconventional compared to prior art focused on sumatriptan monotherapy, with the combination providing synergistic longer-lasting efficacy as shown by clinical data and expert testimony.
The case was a patent infringement suit brought by Mirror Worlds against Apple, alleging that features in Mac OS X (Spotlight, Cover Flow, and Time Machine) and certain mobile devices infringed three related patents on document stream operating systems that organize, display, and archive data chronologically. After a jury trial, the district court ruled on multiple post-trial motions, granting in part Apple's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law while denying Mirror Worlds' requests for enhanced damages, royalties, fees, and other relief. The court found insufficient evidence to support infringement, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, because the accused products did not satisfy key claim limitations such as displaying a cursor or pointer sliding over a stack of documents without a click, and it struck additional evidence not presented at trial.
This case involved an ERISA plan fiduciary, ACS Recovery Services, seeking to recover approximately $50,000 in medical benefits paid to defendant Larry Griffin from a tort settlement he received, by imposing a constructive trust or similar equitable relief under ERISA Section 502(a)(3) against Griffin, his special needs trust, and related parties. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (including a default judgment request against one defendant) and granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning followed the Supreme Court's decision in Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, holding that the relief sought was not truly equitable because the settlement proceeds were not in the defendants' possession but had been placed in a special needs trust and used for other purposes, making the claim essentially one for legal restitution under a contractual reimbursement provision.
In this patent infringement case, Clear With Computers sued multiple defendants and settled with all but one, producing the settlement agreements but resisting discovery of related negotiation communications. Defendants moved to compel production of those communications to evaluate the agreements' admissibility and reliability for proving reasonable royalty damages, while CWC sought a protective order. The court granted the motions to compel and denied the protective order, holding that the communications were relevant to assess whether the settlements accurately reflected the patents' value amid noted inconsistencies in amounts paid and the absence of non-litigation licenses. The decision emphasized a case-by-case approach to admissibility, the increased relevance here due to the nature of CWC's licensing business, and that non-settlement privileges would still apply.
In this patent infringement lawsuit, Southwire alleged that defendants Cerro Wire and Encore Wire infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,557,301, a continuation of an earlier patent also assigned to Southwire. The defendants moved to stay the litigation pending ex parte reexamination of the '301 patent by the PTO, citing recent developments including the PTO's initial rejection of all claims and Southwire's subsequent amendments to the independent claims. The court granted the stay, finding that the amendments neutralized potential prejudice to Southwire from ongoing alleged infringement by competitors, that the reexaminations would likely simplify the issues for trial, and that the case remained at an early stage prior to claim construction, expert reports, or summary judgment motions. The court balanced these factors against Southwire's arguments of business harm and concluded that a six-month stay was appropriate.
This case involved ClearValue suing SNF entities for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,120,690, which describes a water clarification process using high molecular weight DADMAC or Epi-DMA polymers combined with aluminum chlorohydrate, along with claims that SNF misappropriated three related trade secrets concerning polymer blends, manufacturing methods, and pH adjustments. Following a jury verdict finding patent infringement and misappropriation of Trade Secret #1 with associated damages, the court ruled on post-trial motions including defendants' request for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, plaintiffs' motion for final judgment, and a request to vacate prior sanctions. The court granted JMOL and a new trial to SNF solely on the Trade Secret #1 misappropriation claim but denied relief on all other grounds, upheld the patent against an inequitable conduct challenge based on lack of clear and convincing evidence of intent to deceive the USPTO, partially granted entry of final judgment, and left the sanctions award intact due to ClearValue's earlier discovery violations.