Judge Sweet Denies Motion To Further Amend Complaint - Ferring B.V. et al. v. Allergan, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 1:12-cv-02650-RWS (Dkt. 88)

In a dispute dating from 2003 concerning the ownership of patent involving desmopressin, a synthetic hormone used to treat excessive urine production, Judge Sweet denied plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs proposed many counts, including breach of common law duty, breach of contract, and interference with contractual relations. The rulings with respect to patent issues were:

  1. Rejecting patent ownership claims based on replevin. Plaintiffs hoped that the replevin claim would not be time-barred, as “demand and refusal” did not occur until 2012. “[W]here a plaintiff is essentially seeking enforcement of the bargain, the action should proceed under a contract theory.”
  2. Rejected patent ownership claims as futile because of laches.
  3. Rejected conversion claims with respect to inventions, as “an idea cannot be converted.”

Topics:  Motion to Amend, Patent Infringement, Patent Litigation, Patents

Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, Intellectual Property Updates, Science, Computers & Technology Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »