Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc., No. 08 C 2389, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 25, 2008) (Ashman, Mag. J.)

Judge Ashman granted defendants Fresenius’s motion for a stay pending the Federal Circuit appeal of an earlier case between the parties involving related, but not the same, hemodialysis patents. But the Court denied a stay pending an ex parte reexam of plaintiff’s related patents (the same as in the Federal Circuit appeal) and an inter partes reexam of the patents in suit. The reexam of the related patents had only uncertain and limited benefits to the Northern District. Because the patents under reexam were not the patents in suit, there could be no issue preclusion.  And any potential streamlining of the case the reexam might achieve was outweighed by the reexam’s potential for extreme delay.

The reexam of the patents in suit was filed, as was the stay motion, early in the case. And the inter partes nature of the proceeding guaranteed that it would streamline the case. But the potential benefits were outweighed by the likelihood for extreme delay. The court cited statistics showing that the average inter partes reexam lasts 6.5 years and that they can last as long as ten years. Finally, the Court noted that in the ten year history of inter partes reexam, no case had progressed through every possible level of examination and appeal.

Finally, the Court held that a stay pending the Federal Circuit’s decision on appeal would benefit the case. The Federal Circuit was reviewing a claim term used in the patents in suit. And the Federal Circuit was reviewing obviousness and validity, both issues that could shape this case. And the Federal Circuit decision was expected within months, in early 2009. So, the delay did not outweigh the benefits. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks (1)

Abbott Labs v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., No. 04 C 0836, 2007 WL 2875503 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 28, 2004) (Guzman, J.).

Judge Guzman granted plaintiff Abbott Laboratories’ (“Abbott”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) motion to amend its Complaint dismissing claims regarding its U.S. Patent No. 6,444,859 (the “’859 patent”). After the Federal Circuit held the parent of the ‘859 patent invalid, Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharm. Prods., 471 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006), Abbott gave defendant Baxter Healthcare (“Baxter”) a covenant not to sue Baxter on the ‘859 patent (“Covenant”). Abbott, therefore, sought leave to dismiss its claims regarding the ‘859 patent. But Baxter argued that the claims should not be dismissed because the Covenant excluded any reissue or reexamination of the ‘859 patent, thereby creating an actual controversy. The Court held that Abbott’s potential suit based upon its potential reissue or reexam of the ‘859 patent did not create a current controversy. The Court, therefore, allowed Abbott to amend its Complaint dismissing claims regarding the ‘859 patent. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Am. Hardware Manufs. Assoc. v. Reed Elsevier Inc., No. 03 C 9421, 2007 WL 1521185 (N.D. Ill. May 14, 2007) (Moran, J.).

Judge Moran denied in part plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' confidentiality designations regarding the deposition of defendants' former CEO.  Defendants designated as "Highly Confidential," among other portions of the deposition, those portions in which one of defendants' customer contracts (the "Contract") was discussed.  Defendants argued that the terms of the Contract were trade secrets and, therefore, should be given the strongest confidentiality protection available pursuant to the parties' Protective Order.  Magistrate Judge Mason previously reviewed the designation, held that the Contract was not likely trade secret and reduced the related designations to "Confidential."  Judge Moran agreed with Judge Mason, rejecting the argument that the Contract was a trade secret as "conclusory and vague."  And Judge Moran agreed that the Contract warranted a "Confidential" designation.  Judge Moran also explained that while the deposition and related documents would be protected by the Protective Order during discovery, they would not when the Court ruled on dispositive motion or held trial, quoting the Seventh Circuit:

"Secrecy is fine at the discovery stage, before the material enters the judicial record" those documents that "influence or underpin the judicial decision are open to public inspection unless they meet the definition of trade secrets or other categories of bona fide long-term confidentiality."  Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002).  Thus, at the summary judgment, trial or appellate stage, documents that have previously been deemed confidential may not retain such a designation.  See Little v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg. of Am. Inc., 2006 WL 1554317, at *3 (C.D. Ill. 2006).

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks