Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, March 7 at Noon. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to  Amanda Jones by 9 am Monday.

We will be discussing the following cases:

Centocor v. Abbott Laboratories, 2010-1144 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2011) (case attached)  Centocor sued Abbot Labs for infringement of a patent related to antibodies for treatment of autoimmune conditions.  Centocor filed a number of continuation and continuation-in-part applications based upon an early application in this area.  One of these applications was prepared to read upon Abbot Labs antibodies.

A jury at the district court found infringement, willful infringement and awarded damages.  The court granted Abbott Labs’ motion for JMOL of no willful infringement but denied other motions on invalidity, noninfringement and damages.  Abbott appealed the district court’s denial of these motions.

The Federal Circuit found that Centocor’s earliest patent applications did not disclose the human “variable region” of the antibody.  Centocor was primarily focused on mouse-based derivations of treatments.  Abbott Labs’ research and resulting products were based upon human derivations.  As a result, the Centocor application lacked written description for the human variable region claimed and the patent was invalid.

Siemens v. Saint-Grobain, No. 2010-1145, 1177  (Fed. cir. Feb. 24, 2011) (case attached)  This case relates to positron emission tomography (“PET”) scanners used to image the structure and function of patients internal organs.  Siemens sued Saint-Grobain for infringement of a patent related to this technology and prevailed at trial.  The district court reduced the jury’s damage award in response to a  Saint-Grobain’s JMOL motion, but otherwise did not disturb the jury’s decision.

Saint-Grobain appealed on a number of bases.  The appeal was unsuccessful and the Federal Circuit ordered a remand to the district court to consider the appropriate damages associated with 18 additional PET scanners.  In affirming the district court, the Federal Circuit rejected an argument by Saint-Grobain that proving infringement by doctrine of equivalents requires clear and convincing evidence.