Intellectual Property Law

Patent Litigation in Maryland: 2007 Trends

By Brian Wm. Higgin

    Twenty-six plaintiffs filed 24 patent infringement lawsuits in the District Court for the District of Maryland in 2007 (see a list of the lawsuits and the parties involved after the jump). The 24 lawsuits involved 181 defendants (individuals and entities) from all over the world. If you don't count the Technology Patents LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG case, which involved 131 defendants, the total number of defendants sued in Maryland in 2007 was 50.

     One notable change in 2007 compared to 2006 is the apparent increase in the number of patent infringement lawsuits involving life-sciences technologies (e.g., pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices).

     In 2006, 21 plaintiffs filed 23 patent infringement lawsuits in Maryland involving 25 defendants. Thus, while the total number of patent infringement lawsuits in 2007 increased only slightly over 2006 figures, the total number of defendants sued in 2007 compared to 2006 increased significantly. Several factors could push the number of lawsuits even higher in 2008, including a rise in biotechnology litigation, which could involve the 300+ biotechnology companies that call Maryland home, and changes in laws brought about by patent reform legislation, which if enacted could close off certain jurisdictions outside Maryland to plaintiffs that might then consider Maryland as an alternative venue.

     Topping the list of companies filing the most patent infringement lawsuits in Maryland in 2007 were Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., the Edgewood, MD, company that specializes in nutritional supplements, and Israel's Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (with its Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., subsidiary), both of which filed two patent infringement lawsuits in Maryland last year.

     The 24 lawsuits filed last year were assigned fairly evenly among Maryland's District Court Judges: Bennett (2), Blake (3), Chasanow (4), Davis (1), Garbis (3), Legg (1), Motz (2), Nickerson (3), Quarles (1), Titus (1), and Williams (3). 

• Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Platinum Performance, Inc.
• Lonza Group AG v. Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc.
• F.O.B. Instruments, LTD. v. Maxi-Aids, Inc. et al
• Technology Patents LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG et al
• Soundview Publications, Inc. et al v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc.
• Raymond Geddes & Company, Inc. v. J. Rousek Toy Co. Inc.
• American Silver LLC et al v. General Resonance LLC et al
• Simon Systems, Inc. v. Corel Corporation
• Raymond Geddes & Company, Inc. v. Nakajima USA, Inc.
• Nacre AS v. Silynx Communications, Inc. et al
• Stertil B.V. et al v. Automotive Lifts & Machinery Corp.
• Plastic Safety Systems, Inc. v. Road Safety, LLC et al
• STX, L.L.C. v. J. deBeer & Son, Inc.
• Introsan Dental Products, Inc. v. Dentsply Tulsa Dental et al
• Pulse Medical Instruments, Inc. v. Drug Impairment Detection Services, LLC
• Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Cornerstone Biopharma, Inc. et al
• 180S, Inc. et al v. E&B Giftware, LLC
• Wright Manufacturing, Inc. v. Cub Cadet LLC et al
• Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Healthy Directions, LLC et al
• Shire LLC v. Colony Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al
• Wyeth v. Lupin Ltd. et al
• Contech Stormwater Solutions Inc. v. Baysaver Technologies, Inc. et al
• Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. et al v. Lupin Limited et al
• Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. et al v Hetero Drugs Ltd.
  

Full post as published by Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog on January 03, 2008 (boomark / email).