New Jersey State Appeals Court Affirms Rutgers’ Victory in Open Public Records Act Lawsuit
A New Jersey state appeals court affirmed the dismissal of a state Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) lawsuit against Rutgers. In this case, the plaintiff sought copies of Rutgers’ footage of a football game (referred to as “All-22” footage) against Pennsylvania State University. Rutgers denied plaintiff’s request for the videos on the basis that it was not permitted to share the videos with the public. Rutgers is a party to an agreement among other members of the NCAA Football Big Ten Conference to exchange their All-22 video footage, which also prohibits public dissemination of the videos. The plaintiff asserted that the videos were subject to OPRA, and brought suit after Rutgers’ denied the request for access to the videos. In August 2021, a New Jersey Superior Court ruled that the videos were exempt from OPRA, finding that (1) the video was proprietary to Rutgers; (2) the video fell within the competitive-advantage exemption under OPRA; and (3) that the copyright law's fair use doctrine was inapplicable. The plaintiff appealed. On August 15, 2022 a New Jersey state appeals court affirmed the dismissal of the suit, finding in favor of Rutgers on all points.
Phytoceuticals, Inc. Prevails In Cancellation Proceeding Before The European Union Intellectual Property Office
On June 6, 2019, the European Union Intellectual Property Office issued a written decision determining that our client, Phytoceuticals, Inc.’s European Trademark Registration for the mark CELL SKIN LAB CLINICAL SKIN CARE was not invalid based upon prior use of the mark in Europe or the prior ownership of the mark as a result of an agreement between our client and the party seeking to cancel the registration. Likewise, the party seeking cancellation also failed on the grounds of bad faith. Based upon instructions and arguments prepared by our office and on actual evidence provided to our European associate, the European Union Intellectual Property Office specifically found that the filing for the trademark CELL SKIN LAB CLINICAL SKIN CARE was not unauthorized, and that our client, Phytoceuticals, Inc., had established prior rights in the mark in Europe. Further, the European Union Intellectual Property Office also found that the contract agreement entered into by our client with the party seeking cancellation, based upon principal/agent principals. Finally, the European Union Intellectual Property Office, based on evidence that our client provided, rejected all the accusations of the party seeking cancellation with respect to the fact that our client applied for the European Union Trademark in bad faith knowing that the party seeking cancellation had prior rights. Finally, based on these decision, the European Union Intellectual Property Office also awarded our client its reasonable fees and costs associated with this proceeding.
Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Decisions Holding Prasugrel Patents Invalid
In a Rule 36 affirmance entered just two days after oral argument, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit entered judgment upholding two decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding invalid all claims of two Orange Book-listed patents directed to Eli Lilly’s blood thinner Effient® (prasugrel). Lerner David represented Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories in the two Inter Partes Reviews before the PTAB and in the consolidated appeals to the Federal Circuit. The appeals are Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd. et al. v. Accord Healthcare Inc., USA et al., Nos. 2017-1052, 2017-1053 (Dec. 12, 2017).
PTAB Institutes Trial on IPR Petition filed by Lerner David on behalf of Luye Pharma
In a Decision issued in favor of Lerner David clients Luye Pharma Group Ltd., Luye Pharma (USA) Ltd., Shandong Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Nanjing Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted Inter Partes Review of all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,667,061, listed in the Orange Book for Risperdal®CONSTA® (risperidone).
Lerner David Invalidates Key Prasugrel Patents Before PTAB on Behalf of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories
In two Final Written Decisions entered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Lerner David attorneys prevailed in invalidating all challenged claims of two Orange Book-listed patents directed to Effient® (prasugrel). Lerner David was one of five firms representing a total of 20 named generic pharmaceutical Petitioners in two related Inter Partes Reviews. These decisions pave the way for the prevailing generics to launch their products as early as October 14, 2017.
Lerner David Obtains Appellate Judgement of Noninfringement
In John Hopkins University v. Datascope Corp., 543 F. 3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008), Lerner David successfully overturned on appeal a jury verdict of infringement in a case involving fragmentation catheters.
Federal Circuit Delivers Blow To Tranquil
In a dispute over hip implant patents, a federal appellate court has affirmed a district court decision finding of noninfringement for a subsidiary of orthopedics company Stryker Corp., potentially killing rival Tranquil Prospects Ltd.'s infringement counterclaim. On Jan. 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam decision upholding the district court's summary judgment for the subsidiary, Howmedica Osteonics Corp. Oral argument in the case had been held the day before, on Jan. 9, according one attorney. The case began in May 2002, when Howmedica filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity with respect to two patents owned by British Virgin Island-based Tranquil Prospects. Tranquil countersued for infringement. George C. Summerfield of Stadheim & Grear Ltd., which is representing Tranquil, said Monday that his client was contemplating a request for a rehearing. “I was very pleased with the ruling, because in my view it's the last nail in the coffin of this case, which we've always maintained had no basis,” said William L. Mentlik of Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik LLP, which is representing Howmedica. He added, “Although Tranquil has the right to petition for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc, in the case of a per curiam affirmance, the likelihood of a successful petition is virtually nonexistent.” In March 2007, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana found that Tranquil’s assertions of infringement, which were backed by an unsworn expert declaration and “virtual surgery” geared toward demonstrating that implanting Howmedica’s stem implants would infringe on Tranquil’s patented methods, weren’t up to snuff. At issue in the suit are two patents, both of which are entitled “Implantation of Articulating Joint Prosthesis.” Tranquil contended that a variety of Howmedica’s “hip stems,” which connect the femur to the hip socket, encroached on its intellectual property. “We were surprised. We understood the Howmedica attorney to have conceded at oral argument that the judge's claim construction on the medullary canal was incorrect, one of the main issues of the appeal,” Summerfield said Monday. But Mentlik, who represented Howmedica at oral argument, disputed this. “I did not concede anything of the sort,” he said. “What I said was that as a matter of anatomy, the medullary canal doesn't extend the entire length of a longbone. In the context of this particular patent, the judge was justified in construing the limitation as he did.” “Under any construction, they had to lose,” he added. The case stretched on as long as it did in part because of an appeal by Tranquil, which followed the district court’s January 2004 finding that the asserted claims of disputed patents were invalid. The Federal Circuit Court breathed new life into the case in 2005, reversing the lower court’s ruling that the Tranquil’s patent claims were indefinite and invalid, vacating the lower court’s ruling that one patent was not infringed because that ruling was based on an “erroneous claim construction,” and remanding the case back to district court. The patents in dispute are U.S. Patent Numbers 4,636,214 and 5,222,985. Tranquil is represented in this matter by Stadheim & Grear Ltd. and Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP. Howmedica is represented by Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik LLP. The case is Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Tranquil Prospects Ltd., case number 2007-1358,in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. --Additional reporting by Ben James