Health care products maker Johnson & Johnson scored a $1.2 billion win in a patent dispute with its stent rivals Tuesday (October 01, 2008), though at least one company has vowed an appeal.
Shares of the New Brunswick, N.J.-based company rose $2.38, or 3.6 percent, to close at $69.28 Tuesday.
After the market closed, J&J, said the U.S. District Court in Delaware entered a final judgment of about $1.2 billion in favor of J&J's Cordis Corp. unit, which makes heart devices. J&J had argued that patents for stents made by the Cordis unit had been infringed by rivals Boston Scientific Corp. and Medtronic Inc.
Stents are tiny metal mesh scaffolds that prop open heart arteries following surgery to remove clogs. J&J has said juries in 2000 and again in 2005 found that bare metal stents made by Boston Scientific and Medtronic infringed on Cordis Corp.'s patent for the Palmaz stent.
Boston Scientific, which said it will appeal the decision, was ordered to pay $703 million while Medtronic was ordered to pay about $521 million
Showing posts with label Litigation Update. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Litigation Update. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Tessera Receives Right to Appeal Notice in '419 Patent Re-exam
Tessera Technologies, Inc. a provider of transformational technologies that enable innovation in next-generation electronics, today announced the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) on Sept. 17, 2008, issued a Right of Appeal Notice in the ongoing inter partes reexamination of Tessera's U.S. Patent No. 6,433,419 (the '419 patent), withdrawing one of the prior rejections and maintaining other prior rejections of the claims under reexamination. The patent relates to semiconductor packaging technologies used in a variety of applications.
The reexamination proceedings now move on to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, after which they may go back to the examiners, or proceed to further appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Typically, these appellate procedures can take many years to be resolved. The claims of a patent undergoing reexamination remain valid until a reexamination certificate cancelling the claims is issued. A certificate can only be issued after all appeals have been exhausted. Source
The reexamination proceedings now move on to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, after which they may go back to the examiners, or proceed to further appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Typically, these appellate procedures can take many years to be resolved. The claims of a patent undergoing reexamination remain valid until a reexamination certificate cancelling the claims is issued. A certificate can only be issued after all appeals have been exhausted. Source
AeroMechanical Services wins Patent Review and Files Another Motion to Dismiss
AeroMechanical Services Ltd. ("AMA"), a leading service provider of aircraft health performance monitoring systems, announced today that the U.S. Patent Office has again confirmed the validity of AMA's U.S. Patent No. 7,203,630, abruptly ending a reexamination proceeding initiated by Star Navigation Systems Group, Ltd. (Star).
Last year, as announced in AMA's September 26, 2007 press release, Star requested the Patent Office to declare AMA's patent invalid in view of Star's U.S. Patent No. 7,113,852. After a review, the Patent Office disagreed with Star and summarily rejected Star's attack on AMA's patent, finding that AMA's '630 Patent was valid as-issued.
The Patent Office's ruling has dealt a significant blow to Star, because it demonstrates not only the validity of AMA's patent but also the substantial differences between AMA's products and Star's '852 Patent.
The ruling completely undermines Star's ongoing patent infringement case in the Northern District of California, where Star is alleging that AMA is infringing Star's '852 patent. On September 3, 2008, Star re-filed for the third time the infringement case in California. AMA filed a motion to dismiss on September 17, 2008. The Patent Office's ruling further evidences that the California lawsuit is without basis and that there is no merit to the infringement allegations. AMA will continue to defend itself against the baseless allegations made by Star.
AMA is the technology leader in aircraft health performance monitoring systems, and holds patents recognizing its innovation in this industry. AMA takes intellectual property matters very seriously. Source
Last year, as announced in AMA's September 26, 2007 press release, Star requested the Patent Office to declare AMA's patent invalid in view of Star's U.S. Patent No. 7,113,852. After a review, the Patent Office disagreed with Star and summarily rejected Star's attack on AMA's patent, finding that AMA's '630 Patent was valid as-issued.
The Patent Office's ruling has dealt a significant blow to Star, because it demonstrates not only the validity of AMA's patent but also the substantial differences between AMA's products and Star's '852 Patent.
The ruling completely undermines Star's ongoing patent infringement case in the Northern District of California, where Star is alleging that AMA is infringing Star's '852 patent. On September 3, 2008, Star re-filed for the third time the infringement case in California. AMA filed a motion to dismiss on September 17, 2008. The Patent Office's ruling further evidences that the California lawsuit is without basis and that there is no merit to the infringement allegations. AMA will continue to defend itself against the baseless allegations made by Star.
AMA is the technology leader in aircraft health performance monitoring systems, and holds patents recognizing its innovation in this industry. AMA takes intellectual property matters very seriously. Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)
