In the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 1:15-cv-10698-MLW Document 508 Filed 02/22/17 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-10698 Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-11117 CELLTRION HEALTHCARE CO., LTD., CELLTRION, INC., and HOSPIRA, INC. Defendants. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF STANDING Case 1:15-cv-10698-MLW Document 508 Filed 02/22/17 Page 2 of 26 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Legal Standards ................................................................................................................ 3 II. Janssen Lacked Standing To Assert The ’083 Patent In Its 2015 Complaint ............. 3 A. Janssen Did Not Join Co-Owner Dr. Horwitz ........................................................ 4 B. Johnson & Johnson and Other Johnson & Johnson Affiliates Remain Co- Owners of the ’083 Patent..................................................................................... 10 The Plain Language of the Epstein, Marsh, Monsell, and Ozturk Employee Secrecy Agreements Assigned the ’083 Patent to a Group of Related Companies .................................................................... 10 None of Janssen’s Arguments Justify Rejecting the Plain Meaning of “COMPANY” In Favor of Janssen’s “Traveling” Interpretation ......... 14 III. Janssen Lacked Standing To Assert The ’083 Patent In Its 2016 Complaint ........... 19 IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 19 Case 1:15-cv-10698-MLW Document 508 Filed 02/22/17 Page 3 of 26 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC, 625 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................4, 19 Alt. Energy, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 267 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................................16 Arachnid, Inc. v. Merit Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1991)......................................................................................4, 5, 6, 9 Boardwalk Regency Corp. v. New Jersey Casino Control Comm’n, 352 N.J. Super. 285, 800 A.2d 157 (App. Div. 2002) .............................................................15 Corp. v. Allied-Signal Inc., 939 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1991)....................................................................................6, 7, 9, 19 Crawford v. Lamantia, 34 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1994) ..........................................................................................................4 D.R. by M.R. v. E. Brunswick Bd. of Educ., 838 F. Supp. 184 (D.N.J. 1993) ...............................................................................................10 DDB Techs., L.L.C. v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., 517 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................7 Dixon v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, 947 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)................................................................................11, 12 Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Pemberton, No. 10-3973-B, 2010 WL 7926204 (Mass. Sup. Ct. Oct. 27, 2010) .......................................12 Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................3 Fed. Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95 (1941) ...................................................................................................................15 Freedom Wireless, Inc. v. Boston Commc’ns Grp., Inc. 220 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D. Mass. 2002) ..........................................................................................9 Gabriel v. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co., No. 11-12307, 2015 WL 1410406 (D. Mass. Mar. 26, 2015) (Wolf, J.), appeal dismissed (Aug. 24, 2015) .......................................................................................................18 Case 1:15-cv-10698-MLW Document 508 Filed 02/22/17 Page 4 of 26 Gellman v. Telular Corp., 449 F. App’x 941 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................4, 5, 8, 9 Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (2004) ...................................................................................................................3 Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, No. 09-5283, 2011 WL 6028583 (D.N.J. Dec. 2, 2011) ............................................................9 Imatec, Ltd. v. Apple Computer, Inc., 81 F. Supp. 2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)..........................................................................................9 Intuitive Surgical et al. v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., et al., No. 110-cv-183148 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Oct. 27, 2010) .................................................13, 17 Intuitive Surgical et al. v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., et al., No. 110-cv-1834148 (Cal. Super. Ct. filed Sept. 21, 2010) ....................................................17 IpVenture, Inc. v. Prostar Computer, Inc., 503 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2007)........................................................................................ passim IpVenture, Inc. v. Prostar Computer Inc., No. 03-5780 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2005) ......................................................................................6 Johnson & Johnson, DePuy Orthopedics, Inc. et al. v. Biomet, Inc. and Robin T. Barney, No. C-107-07 (N.J. Super. Ct. dated Dec. 6, 2007) .....................................................13, 14, 17 Kampf v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 33 N.J. 36, 161 A.2d 717 (1960)..............................................................................................18 Kieffer v. Best Buy, 205 N.J. 213, 14 A.3d 737 (2011)........................................................................................2, 18 Kotkin v. Aronson, 175 N.J. 453, 815 A.2d 962 (2003)..........................................................................................18 McMahon v. City of Newark, 195 N.J. 526, 951 A.2d 185 (2008)..........................................................................................18 Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device All., Inc., 240 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................3 N.A.A.C.P., Boston Chapter v. Harris, 607 F.2d 514 (1st Cir. 1979) ......................................................................................................4 Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012) ...............................................................................................................8 4 Case 1:15-cv-10698-MLW Document 508 Filed 02/22/17 Page 5 of 26 Newark Publishers’ Ass’n v. Newark Typographical Union, No. 103, 22 N.J. 419, 126 A.2d 348 (1956)............................................................................................18 Nye v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 783 F. Supp. 2d 751 (D.N.J. 2011) ..........................................................................................18 Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 177 (1941) .................................................................................................................15 Pontery v. Peters, 118 N.J.L. 581 (1937) ..............................................................................................................16 Sicom Sys., Ltd. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 427 F.3d 971 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................................3 Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc., 211 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................7 Taylor v. Taylor Made Plastics, Inc., 565 F. App’x 888 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................1, 3 Twp. of White v. Castle Ridge Dev. Corp., 419 N.J. Super. 68, 16 A.3d 399 (App. Div. 2011) .................................................................18 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)....................................................................................................................3 Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) ....................................................................................................................8 5 Case 1:15-cv-10698-MLW Document 508 Filed 02/22/17 Page 6 of 26 Based on the three briefs Janssen already filed on this subject, it is clear that neither of Janssen’s complaints against Defendants satisfied the “long-established rule” that “a suit for patent infringement must join all co-owners of the patent as plaintiffs.” Taylor v. Taylor Made Plastics, Inc., 565 F. App’x 888, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Count 6 of Janssen’s 2015 complaint and all counts of the 2016 complaint should be dismissed on this basis. First, for named inventor Dr. Joseph Horwitz, Janssen is relying on a 1998 agreement with nearly identical language to an agreement the Federal Circuit has already ruled was not an assignment of patent ownership. In that case—which involved contract language Janssen admits is “the closest language” to Dr. Horwitz’s agreement (Dkt. 471 at 5)—the Federal Circuit held that the agreement was merely “an agreement to assign” in the future, which “must be implemented by written assignment.” IpVenture, Inc. v. Prostar Computer, Inc., 503 F.3d 1324, 1327 (Fed.