In a long standing dispute, Abbott and Centocor have been fighting over rights to antibody technology for treating psoriasis. Abbott won an interference before the BPAI and sued Centocor for infringement by Centocor’s Stelara drug. Centocor sought judicial review of the BPAI decision (originally in DC before being transferred here) and the parties filed a combined twelve motions for summary judgment in the D. Mass. suit. In an omnibus opinion, Judge Saylor decided the universally relevant issues as follows:
- Centocor was not precluded from challenging validity in this case because the interference was not complete as it was subject to judicial review in parallel to the infringement action.
- Judge Saylor declined Abbott’s invitation to review validity in the interference first so that Centocor could challenge the patent before a jury (despite the clear-and-convincing standard in the jury case and the preponderance standard in the interference). The court did note that for the interference case it would review the same facts as presented in the jury case to avoid unnecessary duplication.
- The patents were not invalid due to indefiniteness but that the written description defense should go to the jury
- Certain Abbott joint research was not prior art but Centocor’s own research may be argued to the jury
- Summary judgment of infringement entered for certain claims, others were sent to the jury
- Evidence related to cardiac events possibly connected to Abbott’s drug may only be used for the damages case
Abbott GmbH & Co. v. Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc., 09-11340-FDS (D. Mass. Mar. 9, 2012)
Comments