Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
July 15, 2022, Decided; July 15, 2022, Filed
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00337-JRG
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SUPPORTED BY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A bench trial was held on June 28, 2022, wherein the Court heard evidence and argument on Defendant Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited's ("DSC") counterclaim of prosecution laches. (Dkt. No. 421). The Court has considered the totality of the evidence presented at the jury trial, the bench trial, and in the written record, including the post-trial submissions from the parties (Dkt. Nos. 406, 408, 426, 427). The Court now issues this opinion concerning prosecution laches supported by the following Findings of Fact ("FF") and Conclusions of Law ("CL") pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1) and 52(c). In view thereof and as discussed herein, the Court rejects DSC's prosecution laches argument and finds that such does not bar enforceability of Plaintiff Seagen Inc.'s ("Seagen") asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,808,039 (the "ʼ039 Patent").
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Procedural History
[FF 1] This is an action for patent infringement. Seagen sued DSC in October 2020 asserting the '039 Patent. (Dkt. No. 1). The patent is entitled "Monomethylvaline Compounds Capable [*3] of Conjugation to Ligands." (PX-0001 at 1). Seagen alleged that the '039 Patent is infringed by Enhertu®, an antibody-drug conjugate ("ADC") that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for the treatment of certain breast, gastric, and gastroesophageal cancers. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 4).
[FF 2] In July 2021, Intervenor-Defendants AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca UK Ltd. (collectively, "AstraZeneca")—which are involved in the domestic commercialization and marketing of Enhertu®—intervened in this action as a defendant. (Dkt. Nos. 126, 128).
[FF 3] A jury trial was held during the week of April 4, 2022. (Dkt. No. 361). On April 8, 2022, the jury returned a verdict finding that Seagen had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that DSC infringed at least one of Claims 1-5, 9, and 10 of the '039 Patent (the "Asserted Claims") and that Seagen had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that such infringement was willful. (Dkt. No. 370).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125768 *; 2022 WL 2789901
SEAGEN INC., Plaintiff, v. DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD., Defendant, ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, and ASTRAZENECA UK LTD, Intervenor-Defendants.
patent, laches, infringement, patent application, specification, clear and convincing evidence, invention, bench trial, patentee, totality of the circumstances, invalid, district court, Collaboration, equitable, issuance, preponderance, unenforceable, unexplained, auristatin, disclosure, dolastatin, refiling