![]() ![]() 1 On Meso’s cross-appeal, we vacate the district court’s judgment of noninfringement with respect to three additional patents and remand. We affirm on direct infringement, reverse on induced infringement, vacate the damages award, and remand for a new trial on damages. Roche Diagnostics Corporation and BioVeris Corporation (collectively, “Roche”) appeal a final judgment from the District of Delaware sustaining the jury’s verdict that Roche violated exclusive license rights belonging to Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC (“Meso”) by directly infringing one patent claim and inducing infringement of three other patent claims. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. ![]() Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge PROST. _ Before NEWMAN, PROST, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. ![]() MESO SCALE DIAGNOSTICS, LLC represented by NOSSON KNOBLOCH, DANIEL TAYLOR STEVEN DERRINGER, ANASTASIYA MAIONE, Chicago, IL. Also Case: 21-1609 Document: 43 2 Page: 2 Filed: ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION v. for JOHN HUGHES, Bartlit Beck LLP, Denver, CO, argued defendant/counterclaimant-cross-appellant. Also represented by JEFFREY COSTAKOS, KIMBERLY KRISTIN DODD, ERIC MAASSEN. _ Decided: Ap_ JAMES MCKEOWN, Foley & Lardner LLP, Milwaukee, WI, argued for plaintiff/counterclaim defendant-appellant and counterclaim defendant-appellant. MESO SCALE DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Cross-Appellant _ 2021-1609, 2021-1633 _ Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. The Federal Circuit affirmed on direct infringement, reversed on induced infringement, vacated the damages award, remanded for a new trial on damages, and vacated the judgment of noninfringement with respect to three additional patents.Ĭase: 21-1609 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit _ ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant BIOVERIS CORPORATION, Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant v. The court granted Roche judgment as a matter of law on willfulness, denied Meso’s motions to enhance damages, and rendered a noninfringement judgment with respect to three additional patents on the ground that Meso waived compulsory infringement counterclaims. A jury found that Meso holds an exclusive license to the asserted patent claims, that Roche directly infringed one claim and induced infringement of three claims in other patents, and that Roche’s infringement was willful. Meso counterclaimed for patent infringement. In 2017, Roche sought a federal court declaratory judgment that it does not infringe Meso’s rights arising from a 1995 joint venture license agreement. The chancery court determined that Meso was not a party to the 2003 license agreement, such that only BioVeris (IGEN’s successor-in-interest) could enforce the field restriction. Meso sued Roche in the Delaware Court of Chancery in 2010, alleging that Roche breached its 2003 license with IGEN by violating a field restriction. Meso maintains that a prior owner, IGEN, granted it exclusive rights to the patent claims it now asserts against Roche (which sells instruments and reagent packs for performing ECL immunoassays). BioVeris, a Roche entity, owns the patents, which concern immunoassays that exploit electrochemiluminescence (ECL). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |