Judge: T. John Ward
Holding: Patent in Suit Not Unenforceable Due to Inequitable Conduct and Prosecution Laches (or invalid as indefinite)
As readers will recall, this is the case where Centocor obtained a large infringement verdict against defendant Abbott Laboratories in late June of this year. Judge Ward previously set aside the jury's finding of willful infringement but otherwise denied Abbott's motions for judgment as a matter of law. Now he addressed Abbott's inequitable conduct and prosecution laches claims, via the customary bench trial about five weeks after the jury verdict, as well as going back over some ground as far as indefiniteness.
First, after detailing the argument, the responses, the applicable law, and explaining what he found, Judge Ward concluded that Abbott had not satisfied its burden of proving that Centocor made material misrepresentations or omissions during prosecution of the ′775 patent family or deceptive intent by clear and convincing evidence, thus inequitable conduct could not be found in this case.
As far as prosecution laches, Judge Ward similarly found that Abbott had not met its burden of proving that there was any unreasonable delay by Centocor in the prosecution of the applications in the ′775 patent family.Judge Ward also ruled on Abbott's claim that the patent was invalid as indefinite. He noted that he had already rejected this argument in his Markman order, and now "again finds that Abbott has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that those skilled in the art would not understand the bounds of the claims or that the claims are 'insolubly ambiguous.'"
By my reading that's a wrap on the proceedings at the district court level, and the parties will now move to the Federal Circuit round.
