The lawfirm of Howrey & Simon LLP reports (in a PDF file -- White & Case LLP apparently handled the matter for New Merck) that:
. . . .The US District Court for the District of New Jersey has granted Merck & Co., Inc.’s motion for summary judgment in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1419, dismissing all claims against defendants Merck and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. arising from patent litigation settlements between Merck (formerly Schering-Plough Corporation) and Upsher-Smith, and between Merck and ESI-Lederle, Inc. . . .
The Special Master found that to prove their claims, plaintiffs needed to show that the settlements restricted competition outside the scope of Merck’s patent, either because Merck’s patent lawsuits were “sham” lawsuits, Merck’s patent was procured by fraud, or that the settlements, by their terms, restricted entry outside the potential scope of Merck’s patent. . . . The Special Master held that Merck’s patent cases were not “sham” lawsuits, that there was no allegation of fraud on the patent office, and that the settlements were within the scope of Merck’s patents. On March 24, 2010, the US District Court adopted that report and recommendation, dismissing all claims. The private lawsuits followed the filing of a FTC case against Schering-Plough challenging the same settlements. . . . [These have now been dismissed, as well.]
No word on whether the plaintiffs will appeal this dismissal. They have until April 27 to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment