Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc.
Decision Date | 19 June 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 91 C 4632.,91 C 4632. |
Citation | 930 F. Supp. 1241 |
Parties | NOBELPHARMA AB, Plaintiff, v. IMPLANT INNOVATIONS, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Alan I. Becker, Daniel G. Litchfield, Douglas B. Harper, Burditt & Radzius, Chicago, IL, Jeffrey M. Olson, Lyon & Lyon, Los Angeles, CA, for Nobelpharma Ab.
Edward L. Foote, Peter Charles McCabe, III, Winston & Strawn, Chicago, IL, James Ray Wood, Steven J. Soucar, Wood, Phillips, VanSanten, Hoffman & Ertel, Chicago, IL, Stephen Gary Rudisill, Arnold, White & Durkee, Chicago, IL, Gomer Winston Walters, Lindenbaum, Coffman, Kurlander, Brisky & Hayes, Ltd., Chicago, IL, Philip G. Koenig, Jason M. Honeyman, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., Boston, MA, for Implant Innovations, Inc.
Russel M. Pelton, Jr., Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donelly, Chicago, IL, pro se.
On July 23, 1991, Nobelpharma Ab ("NP") sued Implant Innovations, Inc. ("3i"), alleging patent infringement, and 3i counterclaimed, alleging antitrust violations. Between March 14, 1994, and May 4, 1994, this Court held the trial, in which this Court granted 3i's motion for judgment as a matter of law on NP's patent claim, and the jury found for 3i on 3i's antitrust counterclaim. Between May 12, 1994, and January 27, 1995, this Court resolved the issue of inequitable conduct and entered final judgment. On February 16, 1995, NP moved for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial. For the reasons discussed below this Court denies NP's motion for judgment as a matter of law and denies its alternative motion for a new trial. This Court, as the parties, proceeds immediately to the analysis.
1. NP's Motion for a New Trial
Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1) ("Rule 50(a)(1)") governs judgments as a matter of law, and it provides:
If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue.
"In granting judgement as a matter of law after presentation of the plaintiff's case, the plaintiff's facts must be accepted as established and all reasonable inferences from those facts must be drawn in the plaintiff's favor." Allied Colloids, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 64 F.3d 1570, 1573 (Fed.Cir.1995); see Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1227 (Fed.Cir.1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 771, 133 L.Ed.2d 724 (1996); see generally, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
NP argues that it is entitled to a new trial on its infringement claim because this Court "erred in granting 3i's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of best mode ... at the close of Nobelpharma's case in chief." Pl.'s Mot. at 2. NP argues that we "granted 3i's motion because Dr. Branemark testified that the technique used to obtain a micropitted surface on a `Nobel product' was not described in the '891 patent specification." Id. Yet "there is no evidence in the record that this technique was known at the time the patent application was filed, nor is there any evidence of concealing a technique better than the one described in the patent application." Id. So "a reasonable inference can, and must, be drawn that Dr. Branemark's testimony concerning the technique used to form the micropitted surface on a `Nobel product' related to developments subsequent to the filing date of the patent application." Id. at 3.
3i responds that NP is not entitled to a new trial because Branemark "testified that the manufacturing details to produce the claimed micropitted surface were secret and not disclosed." Def.'s Resp. at 1. 3i argues that Branemark's testimony was "unequivocal and dispositive," and 3i cites some of that testimony from trial transcript pages 1621-33, which testimony this Court reproduces below.
The first set of passages, bracketed below, concern the patent, column 7, lines 31 and following, which address micropitting.
The second set of passages, bracketed below, concern the patent, column 4, lines 8 and following, which address micropitting.
The third set of passages, bracketed below, concern the patent, column 4, lines 10 and following, which address micropitting.
The fourth passage purportedly concerns the standardized procedures for making the implants. Although 3i cites several pages of transcript, only two of the pages concern standardized procedures.
Title 35 U.S.C. § 112 ("§ 112") governs the best mode requirement, and, in relevant part, it provides: "The specification ... shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention." See Chemcast Corp. v. Arco Indus. Corp., 913 F.2d 923, 926 (Fed.Cir.1990). "The purpose of the best mode requirement is to `restrain inventors from applying for patents while at the same time concealing from the public preferred embodiments of the invention which they have in fact conceived.'" Transco Prod., Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 560 (Fed.Cir.1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1102, 130 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1995), (quoting In re Gay, 309 F.2d 769, 772 (CCPA 1962)). "A holding of invalidity for failure to disclose best mode requires clear and convincing evidence that the inventor both knew of and concealed a better mode of carrying out the claimed invention than was set forth in the specification." Id. (citing Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1991)).
In Transco, the court followed the Chemcast court's description of the proper best mode analysis, which has two steps. "The first step, which is wholly subjective, involves determining whether the inventor knew of a mode of practicing the claimed invention that he considered to be better than any other at the time he filed his application." Id. at 560. "If the inventor contemplated such a preferred mode, the second step is to compare what he knew with what he disclosed to determine whether the disclosure is adequate to enable one skilled in the art to practice the best mode." Id. "The second step, which involves assessing the adequacy of the disclosure, is largely an objective inquiry that depends upon the scope of the claimed invention and the level of skill in the art." Id.
This Court finds NP's argument unpersuasive. The testimony reproduced above demonstrates that when Branemark filed his patent application, he contemplated a best mode of practicing his invention, but his disclosures were inadequate to enable one skilled in the art to practice that best mode. This Court notes, however, that its finding excludes the testimony purportedly concerning standardized procedures, which 3i misinterprets. In any event, as this Court stated at trial, Branemark "did say that the method of making the implant micropits was a secret not disclosed in the patent." Tr. at 2292. As this Court further stated, Tr. at 2295. This Court believed it then, and this Court believes it now. And in light of it, this Court did not err when it granted 3i's motion for judgment as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc.
...counterclaim against NP, Dr. Per-Ingvar Branemark, and the Institute for Applied Biotechnology. See Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 930 F.Supp. 1241 (N.D.Ill.1996). We conclude that the district court did not err in granting judgment that the patent is invalid as a matter of la......
-
Adair v. State, Dept. of Educ.
...not required where judge's son was an associate with the law firm that represented one of the parties); Nobelpharma Ab v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 930 F.Supp. 1241 (N.D.Ill., 1996) (disqualification not required where judge's daughter was a partner in the law firm that represented one of ......
-
Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc.
...counterclaim against NP, Dr. Per-Ingvar Branemark, and the Institute for Applied Biotechnology. See Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 930 F.Supp. 1241 (N.D.Ill.1996). We conclude that the district court did not err in granting judgment that the patent is invalid as a matter of la......
-
Kemin Foods v. Pigmentos Vegetables Del Centro, 4:02-CV-40327.
...trial now precludes it from raising them in a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law. See Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 930 F.Supp. 1241, 1249 (N.D.Ill.1996). Meanwhile, Kemin urges the Court to consider Kemin's motion on the merits under one of several exceptions ......
-
Table of cases
...Cir. 1998), 9, 55, 204, 207, 209, 211, 213, 214, 217, 219, 243, 244, 330, 332, 333, 340 Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 930 F. Supp. 1241 (N.D. Ill. 1996), aff’d , 141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998), 250 Nolen v. Lufkin Indus., 466 F. App’x 895 (Fed. Cir. 2012), 327 North Carolina ......
-
Antitrust Analysis of Unilateral Conduct by Intellectual Property Owners
...that defendants’ litigation is so baseless as not to warrant Noerr-Pennington immunity.”); Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 930 F. Supp. 1241, 1255 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (“An action that is well enough grounded, factually and legally, to survive a motion for summary judgment is suffi......