On July 9, 2008, Boston Scientific Corporation’s request for a new trial in a patent infringement lawsuit was denied and the $501 million verdict stands.

In February 2008, a jury awarded Saffran $501 million in damages from Boston Scientific’s sale of its heart stents, found to be infringing on Saffran’s patented technology. Boston Scientific plans to appeal the judge’s ruling.

Trimed, Incorporated successfully appealed a summary judgment ruling of non-infringement by the US District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court decision finding that the District Court’s interpretation of “means plus function” was misapplied in the summary judgment ruling. The Federal Circuit stated that the Trimed patent claims articulated sufficient structure for performing the functions and therefore application of § 112 ¶ 6 was not appropriate.

Dr. Bruce Saffran, a radiologist in Princeton, NJ, holds a patent for a heart stent part which enables the stent to deliver medication to the body. Saffran filed a patent infringement suit against Boston Scientific Corporation for infringement of his patent related to the heart stent. A jury in the US District of Texas in Marshall found the patent valid and infringed and awarded Saffran $431.9M in damages. Boston Scientific has indicated it will appeal the award.

Johnson & Johnson also faces an infringement suit by Saffran in the same jurisdiction.

After a slight stall last week, the U.S. House of Representatives on September 7, 2007 passed the Patent Reform Act, HR 1908, with a vote of 220 to 175. On September 10, 2007, the Bill passed to the U.S. Senate for review where it is expected to undergo further debate and editing and result in a different version.

U.S. Patent Office data reveals that North Carolina ranked 15th out of 20 states named in the nation in the number of patents issued to the State’s residence during fiscal year 2006, ending September 30, 2006.

North Carolina residents were issued 2,172 patents during that period. California residents received the greatest number of patents, numbering 23,579, followed by Texas as the second with 6,345 residents obtaining patents.

The US Patent and Trademark Office has revised the Rules of practice in patent examinations in what it states is an attempt to make examination of patent applications in the Patent Office more effective and efficient. The Rule changes require a patent application to give justification for filing a continuing application for a third or subsequent continuing application. The justification will need to demonstrate why the amendment, argument or evidence could not have been submitted in the previously filed applications.

Patent applications having patentably indistinct claims may be required to be contained in one application unless good reason can be shown for the need for multiple copending applications.

Additionally, the Rules require that if an application contains more than five independent claims, or more than twenty-five total claims, the applicant must submit an examination support document covering all the claims.

The Rules changes shall be effective on November 1, 2007, and can impact applications already filed with the Patent Office.

Dr. Eckhard Alt asserted five patents in two different lawsuits against Medtronic, Inc. alleging patent infringement in certain Medtronic pacemakers and defibrillators. The first suit came in October 2004 when Dr. Alt alleged Medtronic was infringing on four of his patents. The second came in February 2006 when Dr. Alt accused the company of infringing on yet another.

Settlement came in late 2006 when Medtronic agreed to purchase and license patents from Dr. Alt for $75 million.

Dr. Alt is a professor of cardiology at Tulane University’s School of Medicine. Medtronic Inc. is medical device company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. According to its website, Medtronic employs more than 37,000 people worldwide and reports 2006 revenue as $11.3 billion.

A subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay $15 million in patent infringement damages to Interpore International after Interpore claimed the subsidiary infringed on a patent for a screw used in spinal implants. Johnson & Johnson also agreed to pay future royalties to Interpore to settle the alleged infringement.

More than a year after the settlement, Biomet Inc. purchased Interpore for $280 million, according to the Wall Street Journal. Johnson & Johnson says it operates more than 250 companies and employs 121,000 people worldwide. According to its Web site, Johnson & Johnson’s worldwide sales in 2006 were $53.3 billion.

In May 2006, Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc., won a $65.2 million verdict from Eli Lilly & Company after a jury decided Lilly infringed on a patent licensed to Ariad by Harvard, MIT and the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research. In addition to the $65 million in back royalties, Lilly will have to pay $17.8 million per year in royalties until the patent expires in 2019.

Ariad’s patent license covers the process of influencing nuclear factor kappa B (NF-kB), which scientists from the academic institutions discovered in the 1980’s. The case drew national interest because it raised questions over the patentability of natural phenomenon.

Harvey J. Berger, the chairman and C.E.O. of Ariad, gave a simple response.

“The jury looked at the evidence, looked at this issue and concluded unanimously that the patent was valid and infringed,” he said in the New York Times.

After the verdict, Lilly said it planned to appeal.

Ariad is a biotechnology pharmaceutical company that employs a little more than 100 people. Lilly employs 42,000 and sold nearly $15.7 billion in pharmaceuticals in 2006, according to its Web site.