For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, January 28, 2018, we will discuss the following cases:
Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc (U.S. January 22, 2019 here) Helsinn developed a treatment for nausea and applied for a patent on it. However, during development of the drug, Helsinn entered into two agreements with other companies and granted them the right to distribute, promote, market, and sell a 0.25 mg dose of the drug in the United States. Years later, Teva tried making the same drug and was sued by Helsinn. Teva argued the patent was invalid due to the on sale bar of the AIA. The district court found the on sale bar did not apply because the .25mg dose was not publicly disclosed, the Federal Circuit reversed holding that so long as the sale was publicly disclosed, the on sale bar applied. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger (9th Cir. January 15, 2019 here) A financial services company sued a web publisher for trademark infringement. The district court dismissed the case under FRCP 12(b)(6). The 9th circuit asked for clarification as to why the case was dismissed, and the district changed the grounds to FRCP 41(b). Although the 9th circuit eventually upheld the dismissal of the case, the 9th circuit also held the district court abused its discretion when it sanctioned the plaintiff and dismissed the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) absent an order requiring the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
All are invited to join us on Monday January 28, 2018, at noon in our Westlake Village office. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Elisha Manzur by 9 am Monday morning.
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.