Centocor v. Abbott Labs, 2:07cv139 (Oct. 1, 2009)
Judge: T. John Ward
Holding: Defendant's Motion for JMOL as to willful infringement GRANTED
Judge Ward issued a couple of orders in this case today, one denying denying several of the defendant's motions for new trial / motions for judgment as a matter of law, and this separate one granting Abbott's motion as to willful infringement. The order details Centocor's reasons why the jury's finding that the new Seagate standard was met should be upheld, and Abbott's that it should not be, and concluded that the latter was the correct ruling:
"The Court finds that the issues of infringement and validity were hotly contested, close, and required an intensely factual inquiry. . . . The jury could have found for either party on the issues of validity and infringement in this case, and although that fact does not automatically immunize an accused infringer from a finding of willfulness, the record developed in this case shows that Abbott presented objectively reasonable and substantial defenses to infringement and validity. The mere fact that the jury ultimately found for the plaintiffs on the issues of infringement and validity does not diminish the difficulty of the jury’s task, which must be viewed objectively. Further, the fact that certain facts were not presented to a jury, such as the close issue of claim construction, does not preclude the court to consider them in its determination of, as a matter of law, whether the first prong of Seagate is met. In this case, the issue of claim construction was close and Abbott’s proposed interpretation for the claims, although eventually not adopted, was reasonable and based upon the specification and prosecution history of the ‘775 patent. Thus, the Court takes the close issues of claim construction into consideration in its determination of whether Abbotts’ actions were “objectively reckless."
The Court finds that this case was close at all stages of the litigation and that Abbott’s defenses and legal arguments, including the close issue of claim construction, were reasonable, legitimate, and substantial. Even when all of the evidence in this case has been reviewed, there is no “legally sufficient evidentiary basis” for a reasonable jury to find as the jury did. As a matter of law, an “objectively high likelihood of infringement of a valid patent” could not have been found under Seagate’s first prong by clear and convincing evidence. Because the Court finds that the first prong of the willfulness inquiry is not met, the Court need not address the second prong of Seagate.
Thus, the court granted Defendants’ Motion for JMOL on the issue of willfulness, and directed the entry of judgment as a matter of law that Defendants did not willfully infringe the ‘775 patent.
