Johnson and Johnson 2015 Annual Report Download - page 79

was a government employee. The State claims that he had no right to transfer any intellectual property to Omrix because it
belongs to the State. The State is seeking damages plus royalties on QUIXIL™ and EVICEL®products, or alternatively,
transfer of the patents to the State. The case remains active, but no trial date has been set.
In September 2011, LifeScan, Inc. (LifeScan) filed a lawsuit against Shasta Technologies, LLC (Shasta), Instacare Corp
(now Pharmatech Solutions, Inc. (Pharmatech)) and Conductive Technologies, Inc. (Conductive) in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California for patent infringement and false advertising for the making and
marketing of a strip for use in LifeScan’s OneTouch®Blood Glucose Meters. The defendants alleged that the three
LifeScan patents-in-suit are invalid and challenged the validity of the asserted patents in the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO). In April 2013, the defendants brought counterclaims for alleged antitrust violations and false
advertising and those claims were stayed pending resolution of the patent infringement case. The validity of two of the
patents was confirmed by the USPTO, but the USPTO determined that the third patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,250,105 (the
‘105 patent), is invalid. LifeScan lost an appeal of that decision, but is seeking a rehearing. LifeScan entered into a
settlement agreement with Shasta and Conductive. A motion brought by Pharmatech for summary judgment of patent
invalidity was argued in February 2016 and the parties are awaiting a decision. LifeScan’s patent infringement and false
advertising claims are scheduled to be tried in August 2016.
LifeScan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against UniStrip Technologies, LLC (UniStrip) in the United States District
Court for the District of North Carolina in May 2014, 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 strips.
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’s appeal of this decision has been dismissed. Medinol has filed a petition for
review with the United States Supreme Court. Following the divestiture of Cordis, the Company retains any liability that
may result from this case.
In December 2014, Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC (Bonutti) sued DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc. and DePuy Synthes
Products, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that DePuy Synthes’s product
line of spine implants infringes six patents owned by Bonutti, generally covering wedge implants and their methods of
implantation. Bonutti is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.
Pharmaceutical
In 2012 and 2013, Noramco, Inc. (Noramco) moved to intervene in several patent infringement lawsuits filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Purdue Pharma L.P. and others (Purdue) against Noramco
oxycodone customers, Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Impax), Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva), Amneal Pharmaceuticals,
LLC (Amneal), Watson Laboratories, Inc.- Florida (Watson) and Andrx Labs, LLC (Andrx). The lawsuits are in response to
the defendants’ respective Abbreviated New Drug Applications seeking approval to market generic extended release
oxycodone products before the expiration of certain Purdue patents. Three of the asserted patents relate to oxycodone
and processes for making oxycodone, and Noramco has agreed to defend the lawsuits on behalf of Impax, Teva, Amneal,
Watson, and Andrx. In April 2013, Watson and Andrx entered into a settlement with Purdue. The trial against Impax and
Teva (and others) took place in September 2013, and Noramco defended Teva and Impax. In November 2013, Impax
entered into a settlement with Purdue, and in December 2014, Teva entered into a settlement with Purdue. The District
Court issued a decision in January 2014 invalidating the relevant Purdue patents and, based on that decision,
subsequently dismissed the lawsuit against Amneal (and other parties not defended by Noramco). Purdue appealed the
Court’s decision. In February 2016, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court decision invalidating the Purdue patents.
If Purdue ultimately prevails in its appeal of the invalidity decision, it can reinstitute its action against Amneal. In December
2015, Purdue filed another patent infringement action against Amneal in the District of Delaware asserting, among others,
the three above-referenced patents and a newly issued patent relating to oxycodone and processes for making
oxycodone.
Johnson & Johnson 2015 Annual Report •67