Johnson and Johnson 2014 Annual Report Download - page 66

the USPTO determined that the third patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,250,105 (the ‘105 patent), is invalid. LifeScan is appealing
that decision. The patent case has resumed on the two other patents. In April 2013, Shasta brought counterclaims for
alleged antitrust violations and false advertising and those claims have been stayed pending resolution of the patent
infringement case. In May 2014, LifeScan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against UniStrip Technologies, LLC (UniStrip)
in the United States District Court for the District of North Carolina alleging that the making and marketing of Unistrip’s
strips infringe the same patents asserted against Shasta above. That case has been stayed pending the outcome of the
appeal of the USPTO’s decision on the validity of the ‘105 patent. In July 2014, UniStrip brought a lawsuit against
LifeScan in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging antitrust violations relating to
marketing practices for LifeScan’s strips.
In November 2011, Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (Howmedica) and Stryker Ireland Ltd. (Stryker) filed a patent
infringement lawsuit against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey alleging infringement by DePuy’s PINNACLE®Acetabular Cup System and DURALOC®Acetabular Cup System of
a patent relating to a dual-locking mechanism feature in an acetabular cup system. Howmedica and Stryker sought
monetary damages and injunctive relief. DePuy filed a counterclaim in February 2012 asserting that Stryker’s Trident
Acetabular Hip System infringes DePuy’s U.S. Patent No. 6,610,097. DePuy sought damages and injunctive relief. In June
2014, the case was settled and dismissed.
In May 2012, Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations Co. and MiniMed Distribution Corp.
(collectively, Medtronic MiniMed) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Animas Corporation (Animas) in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California alleging that Animas’s OneTouch®Ping®Glucose Management
System and the IR 1250, IR 2020 and IR 2000 insulin pumps infringe nine of their patents. Medtronic MiniMed since
withdrew two of the patents from the lawsuit and is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief with respect to the
remaining patents. In July 2014, Animas entered into a settlement of this lawsuit.
In September 2012, Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC (Bonutti), a non-practicing entity, filed a patent infringement lawsuit
against DePuy Mitek, LLC, The DePuy Institute, LLC (now DePuy Synthes Institute, LLC), DePuy, Inc. (now DePuy
Synthes, Inc.) and DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (collectively, DePuy) in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, alleging that DePuy’s manufacture, sale and/or method of using the SIGMA®Family of Partial and Total
Knee Systems and the LCS®COMPLETE™ Knee System willfully infringe three of Bonutti’s patents. Bonutti also alleges
that the method of using certain of DePuy’s suture anchors willfully infringe four of Bonutti’s other patents. In August 2014,
the parties entered into a settlement of the portion of the lawsuit relating to suture anchors.
In March 2013, Medinol Ltd. (Medinol) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cordis Corporation (Cordis) and
Johnson & Johnson in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that all of Cordis’s
sales of the CYPHER®and CYPHER SELECT™ Stents made in the United States since 2005 willfully infringed four of
Medinol’s patents directed to the geometry of articulated stents. Medinol is seeking damages and attorney’s fees. After
trial in January 2014, the District Court dismissed the case, finding Medinol unreasonably delayed bringing its claims, and
Medinol did not appeal the decision. In September 2014, the District Court denied a motion by Medinol to vacate the
judgment and grant it a new trial. Medinol is appealing this decision.
In January 2014, Baxter International Inc., Baxter Healthcare Corporation, and Baxter Healthcare S.A. (collectively, Baxter)
filed a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Inc. (Ethicon), Ferrosan Medical Devices A/S and Packaging
Coordinators Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that the manufacture,
importation, sale and/or use of Ethicon’s SURGIFLO®Hemostatic Matrix family of products infringes six of Baxter’s
patents. Baxter is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In February 2014, Baxter also filed a complaint before
the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) against the same defendants alleging that the importation into the
United States of Ethicon’s SURGIFLO®Hemostatic Matrix Family of Products violates Section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930 due to the alleged infringement of four of its products, and is seeking an exclusion order to enjoin the importation
into the United States of such products. The District Court case has been stayed pending the outcome of the ITC case.
All the patents expire in August 2016. The ITC case was tried in January 2015 and the parties are awaiting a decision.
In June 2014, My Health, Inc. (My Health) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against LifeScan, Inc. (LifeScan) in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging LifeScan’s OneTouch®Verio®IQ Blood Glucose
Monitoring System infringes My Health’s patent related to a method for monitoring and treating patients. My Health is
seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In August 2014, LifeScan filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In October
2014, Lifescan filed an Inter Partes review proceeding in the United States Patent and Trademark Office seeking to
invalidate My Health’s patent. In December 2014, LifeScan moved to stay the lawsuit pending a decision in the Inter
Partes review proceeding.
56 •Johnson & Johnson 2014 Annual Report