A Medical Device Daily

Enzo Biochem (New York) reported that it has filed an appeal of a summary judgment motion in favor of Applera et al. (Norwalk, Connecticut) by the U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut.

Enzo seeks recovery from defendants for past infringement of what it calls “three pioneering patents,” all of which expired in 2004.

“We have reviewed the District Court’s decision and respectfully believe that the court, among other things, improperly resolved issues of fact that we are confident Enzo would have prevailed upon at trial,” said Scott Robertson, Enzo’s lead counsel. “Enzo has filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit seeking to reverse this ruling and intends to vigorously pursue its claims against defendants. We have every belief that the Federal Circuit will overturn this decision, and that Enzo will ultimately prevail.”

The patents at issue are based on the work of David Ward, PhD, at Yale University. Enzo said that Ward’s patents “have been recognized by the scientific and biotechnology communities for more than 20 years as groundbreaking achievements in the field of nucleic acid labeling and detection. Based on his work, Ward has been inducted into the National Academy of Sciences.”

Barry Weiner, president of Enzo, said, “[T]his ruling relates solely to three expired patents, and that it is unrelated to Enzo’s ongoing operating business. Nor is it related to other ongoing litigation which we continue to prosecute. While disappointing, we believe that the ruling is not reflective of the facts in the case and it certainly does not impact our intellectual property portfolio of more than 200 patents.”

Enzo Biochem and Applera have been in the courts disputing patent issues for nearly three years now.

In 2006 Enzo reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied permission for an immediate interlocutory appeal, thereby allowing Enzo’s patent infringement lawsuit in Connecticut Federal District Court to go forward against Applera. The suit was originally filed in 2004 (Medical Device Daily, June 10, 2004).

Enzo Biochem develops products based on molecular biology and genetic engineering techniques and provides diagnostic services to the medical community.

In other patent news: A U.S. District judge has ruled against Spectranetics (Colorado Springs, Colorado) regarding a patent infringement suit filed by Peter Rentrop, MD.

Judge Kevin Castel of U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York ruled that Spectranetics failed to show inequitable conduct or an implied-in-law license to use U.S. Patent No. 6,673,064 (the ‘064 Patent).

At the close of a 2006 trial, the jury found that the patent was valid and infringed and that Rentrop was the sole inventor of the ‘064 patent and parent patent No. 6,440,125. The jury also rejected Spectranetrics’ state-law counterclaims for conversion, misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of a confidentiality agreement.

Evidence as to the equitable defenses was presented at trial but their determination was reserved to the court and now has been resolved in Rentrop’s favor.

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. represented Rentrop.

Spectranetics develops cardiovascular excimer laser systems.