Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Supreme Court refuses to hear Saffran v Johnson & Johnson appeal

The US Supreme Court refused on Monday to hear an appeal from a doctor asking it to reinstate a $482 million patent infringement award against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Cordis

The court declined to hear Saffran v Johnson & Johnson, in which radiologist Bruce Saffran claimed Cordis infringed a patent he obtained in 1997 in making its Cypher brand of drug-eluting stents, tiny mesh tubes used to prop open weak or narrow arteries.

A district court jury previously found that Cordis violate the patent. But a split Federal Circuit panel did not defer to the district court’s claim construction. The Federal Circuit changed the claim construction and overturned the district court’s finding that Cordis infringed the patent.

Saffran asked the appeals court to put his case on hold and reconsider it alongside Lighting Ballast v Philips, which concerns similar issues about the deference the Federal Circuit should give to a district court’s claim construction. But the Federal Circuit refused.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to accept the case means that Federal Circuit’s decision will stand.

The Supreme Court did not decide whether to accept the WildTangentvUltramercial case on Monday, instead electing to put the question of whether to hear it on hold. If the court chooses to accept that case, it will consider when a patent’s reference to a computer or the Internet is sufficient to make an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea eligible for patent protection.

The court may be waiting to decide whether to accept certiorari of WildTangentvUltramercial until it has resolved Alice v CLS Bank, which concerns similar issues and which the Supreme Court agreed to hear in December. Arguments in that case will take place on March 31 and a decision is expected by the end of June 2014.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Patient groups and generics makers may have to bear the brunt of India’s latest attempt at patent reform
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
Paolo Tavolato, who will share the role, said private equity support would help the IP consultancy achieve its ambitious M&A plans
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas has hired former Anand & Anand partner Swati Sharma and hopes to compete with specialist IP firms
Rapporteur-Judge András Kupecz ruled that education and training weren’t legitimate reasons for a member of the public to access documents
Searches for comparison prior art will be a little easier, but practitioners will have to put more thought into claim construction and design patent titles
The Helsinki local division rejected AIM Sport’s request for a preliminary injunction in a dispute with rival Supponor
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The FTC’s plans to scrutinise improperly listed Orange Book patents could make these listings more important in litigation, but firms should be looking at this anyway
Counsel at Debevoise & Plimpton explain how they helped food delivery business Grubhub avoid a preliminary injunction at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit