Glycosyn LLC v. Jennewein Biotechnologie GmbH (18-cv-10423).

Biotechnology company Glycosyn sued German company Jennewein, accusing it of infringing U.S. Patent 9,453,230 by manufacture and sale and/or importation into the United States of human milk oligosaccharide products produced by engineered E. coli bacterial strain.  These products, which are believed to treat or prevent infections in infants, are intended to be added to formula strains to provide their benefits to infants not being breast-fed.  Jennewein sought and obtained FDA approval to bring its products, sold under the name “Mum’s Sweet Secret,” into the country in November 2015, while the ‘230 patent was still pending.

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc. (18-cv-10355).

Realtime accuses Adobe of infringing seven Realtime patents relating to compression and decompression of audio and video files. Among the accused products are Adobe Media Encoder products, Adobe Premier Pro products, Adobe Flash products, and Adobe After Effects products. Realtime asserts direct, contributory and induced infringement.

Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Co. Ltd. at al. (17-cv-11008).

Judge Wolf denied defendants’ motion to dismiss Janssen’s counterclaim of violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f), finding that the counterclaim pled all of the necessary elements of such a claim.  Janssen did not bring this claim in its original complaint, instead bringing it in its answer to the defendants’ counterclaim seeking a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity.  Judge Wolf found the counterclaim to be of right to Janssen as a compulsory counterclaim, as opposed to an amended pleading that would require leave of court.

Hybrid Audio, LLC v. Foster Electric (USA), Inc. et al. (18-cv-10245).

Hybrid Audio accuses home recording equipment company Foster of infringing RE40,281, a reissue of U.S. 6,252,909.  The ‘281 Patent claims priority to an application filed on September 12, 1992; Hybrid claims to have sent letters to Foster in January 2012, providing notice of its belief that Foster infringed the patent.  Shortly thereafter, reexamination of the patent was sought and granted through a different lawsuit.  All of the claims were confirmed via a reexamination certificate that issued on December 1, 2015.  The patent expired on September 21, 2012, while reexamination was pending; Hybrid contends, however, that it was constrained from seeking royalties or filing lawsuits while the reexamination was pending; additionally, Hybrid asserts that the entire period from the notice letter to the expiration of the patent falls within the six-year limitation on patent damages set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 286.  Hybrid seeks RAND royalties for Foster’s use of MP3 technology, at least a portion of which is asserted to be covered by the ‘281 patent, in its Fostex FR-2 and UR-2 products.  Hybrid further seeks a declaration that the case is exceptional and an award of attorney’s fees.

Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company (18-cv-10242).

Teva sued Eli Lilly for infringement of U.S. Patents 9,884,907 and 9,884,908, which cover fremanezumab, a biologic anti-migrane product. Teva asserts that Eli Lilly, with full knowledge of the asserted patents, filed a biologics license application with the FDA for a competing (and allegedly infringing) biologic product, galcanezumab.  While Eli Lilly hasnot yet received approval or begun selling its product, Teva alleges that Eli Lilly has stated its belief that it will imminently obtain approval and begin selling, and is presently beginning to market the product and hire a sales staff to support sales of the product.  Teva asserts knowledge of the patents through Eli Lilly’s challenges to Teva’s related European patent.  Teva seeks a declaration that Eli Lilly’s galcanezumab product infringes the patents, as well as injunctive relief.

Alexander Stross v. Ivymedia Corp. (18-cv-10240).

Texas photographer Alexander Stross sued Ivymedia, alleging that Iveymedia used one of his photographs, “Plenty of Trees,” in its website and advertising for online travel management. He also alleges that Ivymedia knowingly stripped the digital copyright management information from the photograph to conceal its infringement.  Stross seeks actual or statutory damages, to be elected, as well as attorney’s fees and injunctive relief.

Schawbel Technologies LLC v. The Heat Factory USA, Inc. (18-cv-10227).

Schawbel filed suit against The Heat Factory, accusing The Heat Factory of violating an Asset Purchase Agreement and patent license agreement. According to the complaint, the Heat Factory had agreed to buy and resell Schawbel’s heated insole inventory, to be paid in monthly installments.  When The Heat Factory missed some payments, Schawbel exercised its right to terminate the agreements.  Following termination, Schawbel says The Heat Factory continued selling the inventory.  Schawbel asserts breach of contract and willful infringement of eleven utility patents and eight design patents, as well as declaratory judgment that its termination of the APA and license agreement were legitimate.