about patent infringement

about patent infringement
It is a common litigation scenario: One side of the expert says one thing, while the other side that says exactly the opposite. But if - as in patent cases - advice is so crucial to the outcome, summary judgment's possible if the two experts disagree?

Summary of the decision, after all, that a judge has concluded that there is no genuine dispute to any material fact. If the experts at odds as to whether a patent is infringed, it can not be excluded summary verdict?

In a statement, the 21st September, In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals answer that in a case of a pharmaceutical patent. In ruling that the district court erred when it granted summary ruling, the court information on how judges and lawyers should be consistent with this scenario.

The focus of the case was drug manufacturer Warner-Lambert's patent for a method for preparing a highly purified version of the compound gabapentin, the active ingredient in the epilepsy drug Neurontin. If several competing drug companies sought approval for marketing generic versions of Neurontin, Warner Lambert brought against them.

Through the judicial panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the various actions in federal court in New Jersey. Is that the defendants submitted claims, the summary ruling of non-infringement and invalidity.

A key disclosure of Warner Lambert patent was that its processes gabapentin composition with less than 20 ppm of an anion of a mineral acid. " "Find that Warner Lambert is not enough evidence that the defendants' generic products met this limitation and therefore infringed the patent, the district court granted summary ruling in favor of the defendant.

In the District Court, Warner Lambert had her opposition to summary verdict on the results of pH tests of its analytic experts. These results, as argued, countered examination by the defendants' experts, and a genuine issue of material fact.

Conflicting Expert

On appeal to the Federal Republic Circuit, Warner Lambert, that the different opinions of the experts and the defendant's experts - each based on different methods of control - a real problem of the material and the fact that the process of judges have the solution that dispute about the actual summary judgments. The defendants counter that the pH of Warner Lambert tests were invalid and inaccurate.

The Federal Circuit sided with Warner Lambert, the agreement that the outcome of his examination of experts is sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the generic would infringe his patent.

The court briefly considered the defendants' argument against the validity of the pH test, finding that they are expressly excluded, that argument in their initial summary judgment motion. Ironically, they had excluded that argument to avoid factual disputes that might their summary judgment motions.

In order to ensure the accuracy, the court noted that even after taking account of the examination of the error rate, the results showed that the defendants' drugs among the 20 ppm claim limitation of the Warner Lambert patent.

"" Based on the before us, we conclude that the district court erred granting summary ruling of non-infringement of Warner Lambert's alleged non-compliance with its burden of proof "," the court. "The recording shows that Warner Lambert offered sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the accused product with the 20 ppm claim limitation der'482 patent. "

Following the Commission's ruling that summary was incorrect, the Federal Circuit went on to study the Court's construction of two central demands in the Warner Lambert patent, a definition of "anion of a mineral acid" and a further definition of the term "adjuvant". In both cases, the circuit court affirmed the court building.

The case is in re Gabapentin Patent Litigation, No. 2006-1572 (Sept. 21, 2007).

This article originally appeared in Bullseye, a newsletter distributed by IMS Expert Services. IMS Expert Services is the first expert witness and litigation consultant search firm in the legal industry, focused exclusively on their own expert witness searches to attorneys. We are proud to be the election of 89 of the AmLaw Top 100 To read these and other legal industry Bullseye publications, please visit IMS Expert Services' recent articles. Call us at 877-838-8464 or visit us at http://www.ims-expertservices. com