In Seiko Epson Corp. et al. v. Glory South Software Manufacturing Inc. et al. Seiko Epson Corp. has been hit with an antitrust counterclaim in its patent infringement litigation against China’s Nenistar Technology and other printer supply manufacturers over ink cartridges. The counterclaim alleges that Seiko Epson has patented features in its ink cartridges that […]
Category Archives: Patent Litigation
Patented/Generic Drug Manufacturers Settle Patent/Antitrust Suit
April 22, 2009 – 1:46 pm
Teva, owner of patents covering the active ingredient in the drug Coreg, and Glenmark, which had sought to introduce a generic version of the drug have settled their differences and submitted a stipulation of dismissal in their District of New Jersey case. When the primary patent on Coreg expired in 2007, a number of companies […]
Qualcomm Patent Standard Challenge Dismissed on Standing Grounds
March 5, 2009 – 2:22 pm
In Meyer v. Qualcomm, the court dismissed the claim that Qualcomm acted anticompetitively in refusing to license patents essential to a standardized technology. The S.D. of California court ruled that the plaintiff lacked antitrust standing because the chip set it purchased included a broad package of technologies, not just the patented technology involved. Although the […]
Attempt to Monopolize Resin Industry Case Goes Forward
February 3, 2009 – 11:54 am
Judge Joan Lefko, Northern District of Illinois, dismissed a tying claim, but allow other antitrust allegations made by DSM Desotech Inc. against 3D Sytems Corp. to go forward in a private antitrust action involving the stereolithography machine industry. The machines use lasers to cut objects from resin. DSM argues that 3DS has tried to exclude […]
FTC Challenges Drug Acquisitions
January 4, 2009 – 3:27 pm
The FTC, along with the state of Minnesota, has sued Ovation Pharmaceuticals, arguing that the drug company acted anticompetitively in aquiring over the course of several months in 2005 and 2006 the only two drugs available in the US to treat a certain congenital heart defects. It acquired Indocin in August 2005, while a potentially competitive drug, […]
Court Certifies Class in Heart Drug Patent Case
January 4, 2009 – 1:13 pm
Judge Joseph Greenaway, US District Court for the District of New Jersey, in In re: K-Dur Antitrust Litigation has certified a class of direct purchasers of the Schering-Plough drug K-Dur 20. The case alleges that Schering improperly delayed the introduction of a generic version of the drug by making settlement payments to competitors that had filed abbrevieated […]
Court Approves Settlement of DNA Patent Class Action
January 4, 2009 – 1:04 pm
Judge Henry Kennedy of the US District Court for the District of Columbia approved a $33 million settlement between Hoffmann-LaRoche and a class of plaintiffs that used DNA identification technology. The case alleged that LaRoche had obtained the relevant patent through fraud on the patent office.
EC Raids Pharmaceutical Companies
December 30, 2008 – 2:04 pm
The European Commission has reportedly raided the offices of pharmaceutical companies suspected of breaching EU competition rules by operating a cartel or abusing market position. Without identifying the companies, the Commission said only that the inspections had taken place in “several” EU Member States. The raids took place ahead of the publication of a 400-page Commission report […]
Case Against Sham Challenge to Generic Drug Goes to Trial
November 21, 2008 – 11:05 am
Southern District of NY Judge Harold Baer ruled that an antitrust action against Sanofi-Aventis for filing an allegedly baseless citizent petition to block approval of generic versions of rheumatoid-arthritis drug leflunomide. The plaintiff, Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. argues that the petition was filed with the intent to delay approval, and that it had the intended […]
Refusal to Include Patent in Standard Not a Restraint of Trade
October 28, 2008 – 2:57 pm
The Fifth Circuit has held that a standard setting consortium’s decision not to include Golden Bridge Techonologies patent in a cell phone related standard, by itself, cannot constitute an unreasonable restraint on trade. By its very nature, the court held, a standard setting organization must select some patents and reject others. Absent evidence of anticompetitive […]