Judge Saylor Keeps Patent Case, Follows First-to-File Rule

Abbott GmbH & Co. (Wiesbaden, Germany) and co-plaintiff Abbott Bioresearch Center (Worcester, MA) sued Centocor Ortho Biotech (Horsham, PA) for infringement of Abbott’s Patent Nos. 6,914,128 and 7,504,485 following an interference between Abbott and Centocor over the ‘128 patent where Abbott prevailed.  18 days after Abbott sued Centocor, Centocor sued Abbott for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity on the ‘128 and ‘485 patents and for a review of the USPTO in the ‘128 interference. 

 

Abbott filed in D. Mass., Centocor in D. D.C.  On December 18, 2009 a judge in D.C. decided that the DJ case should be transferred to D. Mass.  This decision confirms that analysis and keeps the case in Mass.

 

The court held that the plaintiff’s choice of forum should be given deference and ruled that Mass. was the more convenient forum after going through the analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) [the decision incorrectly cites 35 U.S.C.] as a number of witnesses and documents were identified that are located in Mass. but none were identified that are located in D.C. 

 

Let the litigation commence.

 

Abbot GmbH & Co. v. Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc., 09-11340-FDS (D. Mass. Jan. 6, 2010)