Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,340 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Federal Case Categories







J&J Cardiovascular Stent Patent Action Deemed First-Filed

Abbott Laboratories v. Johnson and Johnson, Inc., 524 F.Supp.2d 553 (D.Del., Nov. 28, 2007)

Cardiovascular drug manufacturer competitors Abbott Laboratories, and Johnson and Johnson, Inc., and Cordis Corporation hold six related patents for drug-eluting coronary stents, each sharing a common specification. The patents issued around the same time and on each day a patent issued, Abbot and Cordis/J & J raced to the courthouse to file either new civil actions for patent infringement or motions to supplement existing actions.

In September 2006, Abbot filed civil action no. 06-613 (“06-613 action”) in the Delaware District Court against J & J/Cordis seeking a declaratory judgment that J & J/Cordis’ Patents 764, 796, and 536 were invalid and that Abbott did not infringe the patents.

Eight months later, on May 15, 2007, the very day that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued Patent 7286 to J & J, Abbot concurrently filed a motion to supplement its 06-613 action to add the Patent 7286 to its action, and a declaratory action against J & J based on the 7286 patent. On that same day, J & J filed an action against Abbott in the New Jersey District Court asserting infringement of the 7286 Patent. Abbott filed four subsequent motions for leave to file an amended complaint in the 06-613 action.

On August 30, 2007, Cordis executed a covenant not to sue Abbot for infringement of the 764, 796 or 536 patents. The next day, J & J moved to dismiss the 06-613 action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Delaware District Court addressed Abbot’s motions for leave to supplement its complaints in each action; Abbot’s motion to enjoin J & J from prosecuting the New Jersey action; and J & J’s motion to dismiss the 06-613 action based on the covenant not to sue.

The Court initially denied Abbott’s motion to supplement the 06-613 complaint. The covenant not to sue divested the Court of declaratory judgment jurisdiction in the 06-613 action, and Abbott’s motion to supplement did not justify ignoring the legal effect of the covenant. The Court granted J & J’s motion dismissing case 06-613.

The Court also denied Abbott’s motion to enjoin J & J from prosecuting its 7286 Patent action in New Jersey. Where proceedings involving the same parties and issues are pending simultaneously in different federal courts, the first-to-file rule requires dismissal of the second-filed suit absent exceptional circumstances. E.E.O.C. v. Univ. of PA., 850 F.2d 969, 976-79 (3rd Cir. 1988). J & J filed the first suit regarding the 7286 Patent. The Court rejected Abbott’s assertion that the 06-613 action should be deemed first filed because the actions were “inextricably intertwined”; no case or controversy existed prior to May 15, 2007, the date of the 7286 Patent filing. Evidence of forum shopping by both parties was not exceptional in any manner to justify departure from the first-filed rule.

Because the New Jersey action was the first-filed, the Court declined jurisdiction over Abbott’s other complaints and denied Abbott’s motions for leave to supplement those complaints.

 

 

Judge(s): Sue L. Robinson, District Court Judge
Related Categories: Civil Procedure , Civil Remedies
 
Plaintiff Lawyer(s) Plaintiff Law Firm(s)
Christopher J. Buchko McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd.
Sandra A. Frantzen McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd.
James M. Hafertepe McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd.
Leland G. Hansen McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd.
Edward A. Mas, II McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd.
Stephanie F. Pall McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd.
Frederick Cottrell III Richards Layton & Finger PA
Anne Gaza Richards Layton & Finger PA

 
Defendant Lawyer(s) Defendant Law Firm(s)
Steven J. Balick Ashby & Geddes
John G. Day Ashby & Geddes
Tiffany Geyer Lydon Ashby & Geddes
Lauren E. Maguire Ashby & Geddes
Russell Cass Sidley Austin LLP

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
case 1:07-cv-00259-slr document 25 filed 11/28/2007 page 4 of 10 case 1:07-cv-00259-slr document 25 filed 11/28/2007 page 10 of 10 case 1:07-cv-00259-slr document 25 filed 11/28/2007 page 1 of 10 case 1:07-cv-00259-slr document 25 filed 11/28/2007 page 2 of 10 case 1:07-cv-00259-slr document 25 filed 11/28/2007 page 6 of 10 case 1:07-cv-00259-slr document 25 filed 11/28/2007 page 5 of 10 case 1:07-cv-00259-slr document 25 filed 11/28/2007 page 8 of 10 case 1:07-cv-00259-slr document 25 filed 11/28/2007 page 7 of 10 case 1:07-cv-00259-slr document 25 filed 11/28/2007 page 9 of 10 case 1:07-cv-00259-slr document 25 filed 11/28/2007 page 3 of 10


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise