Court finds inequitable conduct
Aventis Pharma S.A., et al. v. Hospira, Inc., C. A. No.07-721-GMS, September 27, 2010.
Sleet, C. J. The court makes post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows: (A) claims 2 and 10 of the '561 patent are invalid due to indefiniteness; (B) all asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid due to obviousness; (C) the asserted claims are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct; (D) the asserted claims are not invalid due to double patenting; (E) the defendants' proposed products infringe asserted claims 2, 5, and 10 of the '561 patent and claim 33 of the '512 patent; and (F) each of the parties Rule 52(c) motions are granted in part and denied in part.
The court makes the following post-trial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the validity and enforceability of the patents-in-suit and whether the defendants' proposed products infringe the patents-in-suit. The patents-in-suit relate to two hydrophobic antineoplastic agents which demonstrate significant antitumor activity. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the court concludes that claims 2 and 10 of the '561 patent are invalid due to indefiniteness and the prior art available at the time of filing renders obvious every limitation of each of the asserted claims. However, the asserted claims are not invalid due to double patenting. Next the defendants assert that the patents-in-suit are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct on the part of the applicants. The court concludes that Jean-Louis Fabre (one of the named inventors) engaged in inequitable conduct by failing to disclose two prior art references. These references are highly material because they are inconsistent with the position that the plaintiffs took in asserting the patentability of the asserted claims and they were sufficient to render the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit obvious. Moreover, the court concludes that a reasonable examiner would find these references to be key references in determining the patentability and proper scope of the asserted claims. In addition, the court finds the evidence of deceptive intent to be clear and compelling. Finally, the court finds that the defendants' proposed products infringe asserted claims 2, 5, and 10 of the '561 patent and claim 33 of the '512 patent.
