Janssen v. Celltrion: Court Denies Celltrion’s Summary Judgment Motion, Orders Further Briefing as to Hospira

Approved Biosimilar Products  •  Biosimilar News  •  BPCIA and Related U.S. Statutes  •  Janssen v. Celltrion (infliximab)  •  U.S. Biosimilar Litigation News

This morning, in the district court action in Janssen v. Celltrion, Judge Wolf issued an oral order denying the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,598,083 (“the ’083 patent”) as it relates to Celltrion, but ordered further briefing to the extent the motion concerns Hospira.  These orders follow a hearing regarding the defendants’ motion that began yesterday and concluded today.  The Court’s order as to Celltrion means that Plaintiffs’ allegations of infringement by Celltrion will proceed to trial, which is currently scheduled to begin February 13, 2017.

The ’083 patent is the only patent left in dispute before the district court, and concerns compositions for producing cell culture media.  Celltrion and Hospira had moved to dismiss all counts of infringement of the ’083 patent (Counts 1-3 in Case No. 16-cv-11117 and Count 6 in Case No. 15-cv-10698), which allege both direct and induced infringement.  The parties’ briefs on the motions can be found here (Defendants’ opening brief in support of motions), here (Plaintiffs’ opposition), here (Defendants’ reply), and here (Plaintiffs’ sur-reply).  The only other remaining issue is Count 1 of Case No. 15-cv-10698, which alleges that the defendants violated the BPCIA patent dance provisions.

Following yesterday’s oral arguments on the issues presented by the motion, the Court today denied the motion regarding non-infringement by Celltrion.  The Court ruled that there was a disputed issue of material fact regarding whether Celltrion directly infringed the ’083 patent, and whether it induced infringement of the ’083 patent by third-party HyClone.

After hearing oral arguments on the motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ induced infringement claim against Hospira, the Court ordered the parties to submit further briefing on the issue, explaining that today’s arguments raised an issue that had not been raised or addressed in the parties’ briefs: whether Plaintiffs can allege under a joint-venture theory that Hospira induced HyClone to infringe.

Stay tuned to the Big Molecule Watch for future developments.

Download PDF

Comments are closed.