Friday, March 18, 2016

Failure to Show All Defenses Were Objectively Baseless Warrants JMOL on Plaintiff’s Willfulness Claim

The court granted defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law that they did not willfully infringe plaintiffs' antigen patents because one of their invalidity defenses was not objectively baseless. "[P]laintiffs have not carried their burden of showing - by clear and convincing evidence - that all of the invalidity defenses asserted by defendants were objectively baseless. Setting aside the obviousness and enablement defenses, I find that defendants' written description defense was not objectively baseless. . . . The evidence plaintiffs would like to present to the jury, including that of conflicting positions taken by defendants before the PTO, goes to defendants' subjective intent and, therefore, has no role to play in evaluating the objective prong of the [In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)] inquiry. Therefore, the issue of willfulness will not be heard by the jury."

Amgen Inc. et al v. Sanofi et al, 1-14-cv-01317 (DED March 16, 2016, Order) (Robinson, J.)

No comments: