Although still the most popular district court for new patent cases. The magnetism of the Eastern District of Texas may be beginning to wane. Two recent cases:
- Weinstein v. UGS Corp: This is not a patent case — however it may be indicative of the court’s new favorite word: Transfer. Here, the court transferred a civil case back to Michigan were the best locus of facts and witnesses could be found.
TGIP v. AT: TGIP won a $156 million patent infringement verdict — the largest patent verdict ever in the Eastern District of Texas. After the verdict, the district court erased the award — awarding judgment as a matter of law for AT&T. Apparently, the jury decision did could not properly account for technical details regarding the call authorization code timing.
Michael Smith calculates the 2007 patentee win rates at 28% (2 of 7). If Patent Reform 2007 becomes law, new filings will likely dry up quickly (becaues the venue will be improper for most cases).
Some evidence to the contrary —over 15% of new patent lawsuits filed between August 1, 2007 and November 1, 2007 were filed in the Eastern District of Texas (Westlaw Docket Reports).
Documents:
Nothing in the Trolltracker post contradicts what Dennis says. Besides, one cannot compare a district’s patent activity simply by counting the number of filings. EDTx has still not proven that it is a suitable jurisdiction for cases that have a high likelihood of going to trial. For complicated cases where settlement is unlikely, it appears that patentees still prefer DNJ, DDel, and NDIll.
After all, Trolltracker points out that CDCal also has a lot of filings. Nevertheless, CDCal is notoriously anti-patentee. If you want evidence, just read this February’s inequitable conduct ruling in the Lovenox case (currently on appeal before the CAFC). Those who file in CDCal and EDTx may have a strategy in mind. But it does not seem that that strategy includes seeing the complaint through to verdict (distinguishing EDTx filings from the ANDA cases typically filed in DNJ and DDel).
Re: “the magnetism of the Eastern District of Texas may be beginning to wane.”
trolltracker.blogspot.com provides an 11/2 detailed factual rebuttal.
I wouldn’t read too much from Judge Ward’s decision in Weinstein into patent cases. The Fifth Circuit has been openly hostile to the EDTx racket for some time, and has been granting mandamus petitions to force discretionary transfers out of his court. See, e.g., In re Volkswagen USA, 2007 WL 3088142 (5th Cir. 2007); In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004).
Of course, the Fifth Circuit has no jurisdiction in patent cases. IMHO, the Fed Circuit couldn’t care less about the venue issue — and you’re kidding yourself if you think Judge Ward doesn’t know that.
In short, when the case is subject to Fifth Circuit review (as Weinstein was), it’s hardly surprising that Judge Ward may apply a more lenient standard for transfer requests. However, I’ve seen nothing that even remotely indicates that the EDTx welcome mat isn’t firmly in place for patent cases. The only thing that will change this situation is passage of a patent reform bill or an extraordinary shift in the thinking of the Federal Circuit on venue issues.
Thanks.
New Jersey is the heart of drug development and has become a hot location for filing ANDA litigation. Here is a list of the recently filed cases in New Jersey:
ACORDA THERAPEUTICS, INC. v. APOTEX INC. ET AL 2:07CV04937
ADAMS RESPIRATORY THERAPEUTICS, INC. ET AL v. PERRIGO COMPANY ET AL 2:07CV04619
ANADIGICS, INC. v. VISUAL PHOTONICS EPITAXY CO. LTD. 3:07CV03767
AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS INC. ET AL v. DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD. ET AL 2:07CV05180
AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. ET AL 2:07CV05076
AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. 2:07CV05054
CELGENE CORPORATION ET AL v. INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS CORP. 3:07CV04854
CELGENE CORPORATION ET AL v. KV PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY 2:07CV04819
CELGENE CORPORATION ET AL v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. 3:07CV04459
CELGENE CORPORATION ET AL v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. 2:07CV04459
CELGENE CORPORATION v. BARR LABORATORIES, INC. ET AL 2:07CV04050
CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC. v. ASHER 3:07CV04216
COTAPAXI CUSTOM DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING, LLC v. AD MASTER SUPPLY ET AL 2:07CV04635
COTAPAXI CUSTOM DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING, LLC v. PACIFIC DESIGN AMD MANUFACTURING , INC. ET AL 2:07CV04378
DEOLA v. HEALTH IN MOTION LLC 1:07CV05042
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v. ACTAVIS ELIZABETH LLC 2:07CV03770
GREENVILLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL 3:07CV04222
HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE INC. v. APOTEX INC. ET AL 2:07CV04417
HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE INC. v. COBALT PHARMACEUTICALS INC. ET AL 2:07CV04539
HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE INC. v. MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, INC. ET AL 2:07CV04350
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. v. COBALT PHARMACEUTICALS INC. ET AL 2:07CV04540
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. v. DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD. ET AL 2:07CV04516
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. v. GATE PHARMACEUTICALS ET AL 2:07CV04285
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. v. GENPHARM INC. ET AL 2:07CV04661
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. v. ORCHID CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ET AL 2:07CV04582
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEURTICALS USA, INC. ET AL 2:07CV04284
IN RE: DESLORATADINE PATENT LITIGATION – MDL1851 3:07CV03930
KING PHARMACEUTICALS INC. ET AL v. ACTAVIS, INC. ET AL 2:07CV05041
LOTTOTRON, INC. v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 3:07CV05085
MACDERMID PRINTING SOLUTIONS, L.L.C. v. E.I. DUPONT DENEMOURS AND COMPANY 3:07CV04325
MAYNE PHARMA LTD. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC 3:07CV04637
MEDEVA PHARMA SUISSE A.G. ET AL v. ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC. 3:07CV05165
MEDPOINTE HEALTHCARE INC. v. COBALT PHARMACEUTICALS INC. 3:07CV04017
MILESTONE SCIENTIFIC INC. v. HODOSH 2:07CV04000
MILLENNIUM, L.P. v. IMAGING BUSINESS MACHINES, LLC 3:07CV04424
NESEA CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED ET AL v. ACTIVAR, INC. 1:07CV04499
NOVARTIS CORPORATION ET AL v. MYLAN LABORATORIES INC. ET AL 2:07CV04918
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION ET AL v. RANBAXY INC. ET AL 3:07CV03755
OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. v. SYNTHON HOLDING BV ET AL 3:07CV04112
PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO KG v. SAMSUNG TECHWIN CO ET AL 2:07CV04940
PRIOLEAU ET AL v. GOLDSTEIN LAW OFFICES, P.C. ET AL 1:07CV03636
REFINED RECOMMENDATION CORPORATION v. NETFLIX, INC. 2:07CV04981
RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY v. BEVOCAL, INC. 3:07CV04200
SANDOZ, INC. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 2:07CV04100
SANKO MACHINERY CO., LTD. v. SCHMUCKER S.R.L. 1:07CV04535
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC ET AL v. MAYNE PHARMA LIMITED ET AL 3:07CV04550
SCHERING CORPORATION v. CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES, LTD. ET AL 3:07CV03932
SCHERING CORPORATION v. DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC. ET AL 3:07CV05062
SCHERING CORPORATION v. DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC. ET AL 3:07CV05038
SCHERING CORPORATION v. GEOPHARMA, INC. ET AL 3:07CV03931
SEPRACOR INC. ET AL v. DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD. ET AL 3:07CV05001
SEPRACOR INC. ET AL v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. ET AL 3:07CV05017
SEPRACOR INC. ET AL v. ORCHID CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ET AL 3:07CV04623
SEPRACOR INC. ET AL v. PERRIGO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ET AL 3:07CV05136
SEPRACOR INC. ET AL v. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. 3:07CV04213
TELEBRANDS CORP. v. YAEGER 2:07CV03785
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. ET AL v. ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. ET AL 3:07CV04942
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. ET AL v. APOTEX, INC. ET AL 3:07CV04897
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. ET AL v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS,INC. 2:07CV04214
THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY v. ASHER, D.D.S., M.S. 2:07CV04215
VOXRED INTERNATIONAL LLC v. BGEARS, INC. ET AL 2:07CV04034
WARNER CHILCOTT COMPANY, INC. v. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. ET AL 2:07CV04697
WARNER CHILCOTT COMPANY, INC. v. BARR LABORATORIES, INC. 2:07CV04560
Why would New Jersey be on the list?
TGIP…did you mean JNOV instead of JMOV
Comments are closed.