Janssen v. Celltrion: Court Denies Celltrion’s Summary Judgment Motion, Orders Further Briefing as to Hospira

Goodwin
Contact

This morning, in the district court action in Janssen v. Celltrion, Judge Wolf issued an oral order denying the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,598,083 (“the ’083 patent”) as it relates to Celltrion, but ordered further briefing to the extent the motion concerns Hospira.  These orders follow a hearing regarding the defendants’ motion that began yesterday and concluded today.  The Court’s order as to Celltrion means that Plaintiffs’ allegations of infringement by Celltrion will proceed to trial, which is currently scheduled to begin February 13, 2017.

The ’083 patent is the only patent left in dispute before the district court, and concerns compositions for producing cell culture media.  Celltrion and Hospira had moved to dismiss all counts of infringement of the ’083 patent (Counts 1-3 in Case No. 16-cv-11117 and Count 6 in Case No. 15-cv-10698), which allege both direct and induced infringement.  The parties’ briefs on the motions can be found here (Defendants’ opening brief in support of motions), here (Plaintiffs’ opposition), here (Defendants’ reply), and here (Plaintiffs’ sur-reply).  The only other remaining issue is Count 1 of Case No. 15-cv-10698, which alleges that the defendants violated the BPCIA patent dance provisions.

Following yesterday’s oral arguments on the issues presented by the motion, the Court today denied the motion regarding non-infringement by Celltrion.  The Court ruled that there was a disputed issue of material fact regarding whether Celltrion directly infringed the ’083 patent, and whether it induced infringement of the ’083 patent by third-party HyClone.

After hearing oral arguments on the motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ induced infringement claim against Hospira, the Court ordered the parties to submit further briefing on the issue, explaining that today’s arguments raised an issue that had not been raised or addressed in the parties’ briefs: whether Plaintiffs can allege under a joint-venture theory that Hospira induced HyClone to infringe.

Stay tuned to the Big Molecule Watch for future developments.

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.

© Goodwin | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Goodwin
Contact
more
less

Goodwin on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.