Court Denies Baxalta S Challenge to 155 Million Patent Infringement Verdict
Contributed by Knobbe Martens. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.
Bayer sued Baxalta for infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,364,520. This patent covers a protein necessary for blood clotting that is used in Baxalta’s hemophilia A medication – Adynovate. Earlier this year, a jury found Baxalta liable and awarded Bayer more than $155 million in damages. This case just moved a few steps closer to final judgment.
First, the Court denied Baxalta’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that the ’520 patent is invalid, that Adynovate does not infringe, and that the jury’s damages award lacked sufficient evidentiary support. In denying Baxalta’s motion, the Court found there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s 17.78% royalty rate on a royalty base of more than $872 million. The Court also awarded Bayer supplemental damages, prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest, but confirmed that there was not enough evidence for a jury to find willful infringement.
The case is Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc. et al., Case No. 16-cv-1122-RGA (D. Del).
Editors: Brian Horne, Yanna Bouris and Paul Stewart
Written by: Mark Kachner
More insights
Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidation of Patent for Lack of Enablement of Claims Directed to a Method of Treating a Patient with a Unit Dosage in Wyeth Llc v Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals Lp
Written by : Eric Furman, Ph.D. and Ashley C. Morales Key Takeaway: Federal Circuit invalidates patent claims directed to a method for treating non-small cell lung cancer through administration of “a unit dosage” of an irreversible epidermal…
When About Becomes Indefinite Federal Circuit Provides Guidance for Life Science Patent Applications Regarding Limits of Approximation in Enviro Tech v Safe Foods
Written by : Jason J. Jardine and Kenneth O. Aruda, Ph.D. Key Takeaway: The term “about” remains useful in biotech and pharmaceutical claims, but only if the patent provides objective guidance about what the term means. Absent that guidance,…
When Any Patent Means No Patent Federal Circuit Reverses Non Specific Verdict
Written by : Brian C. Barnes and Sophia F. Zahn OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC [OPINION] Before Chen , Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary : A verdict form…