April 22 (Bloomberg) -- Samsung Electronics Co. said $38.4 million is the “hypothetical” amount it owes if a jury finds the Galaxy maker infringed Apple Inc.’s smartphone technology, not the $2.19 billion the iPhone maker seeks.
Samsung called on Judith Chevalier, a professor from the Yale University School of Management, yesterday to make its case to a federal jury in San Jose, California, that if it has to pay anything, the amount should be 35 cents a phone -- starkly less than Apple’s demand for more than $40 a phone.
Her testimony builds on a Samsung lawyer’s argument at the outset of trial that Apple’s multibillion-dollar figure is a “gross exaggeration” and an “insult” to the intelligence of jurors. According to Samsung, Cupertino, California-based Apple’s damages are inflated because the five patented smartphone features at issue in the case are of marginal value.
The second U.S. trial between the world’s top two smartphone makers follows legal battles on four continents to dominate a market that was valued at $338.2 billion last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Samsung, based in Suwon, South Korea, had 31 percent of industry revenue, compared with 15 percent for Apple, whose share of the market has shrunk as the touch-screen interface has become commonplace and Samsung, LG Electronics Inc. and Lenovo Group Ltd. have introduced lower-cost alternatives.
The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 12-cv-00630, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).
For more, click here.
Eli Lilly’s Gastric Cancer Drug Gains Approval From U.S. FDA
Eli Lilly & Co.’s experimental gastric cancer treatment, one of the drugmaker’s top late-stage drug candidates that analysts project may generate more than $1 billion in sales, was approved by U.S. regulators.
The drug, ramucirumab, to be sold under the brand name Cyramza, was cleared for patients with advanced stomach cancer and those with a form of cancer located in the area of the body where the esophagus joins the stomach, the Food and Drug Administration said yesterday in a statement.
Cyramza was approved under a priority review for those whose cancer can’t be surgically removed or has spread after being treated with other medicines, the FDA said.
Eli Lilly is seeking new products in cancer and diabetes to overcome the loss of some of its best-selling medicines. In December, it lost patent protection on the anti-depressant Cymbalta, the top seller that brought in $5.08 billion last year, 22 percent of the Indianapolis-based company’s revenue.
For more, click here.
Pfizer Agrees to Pay $190 Million to Settle Neurontin Case
Pfizer Inc., the world’s biggest drugmaker, agreed to pay $190 million to end a lawsuit claiming it violated federal antitrust laws by delaying generic versions of its Neurontin epilepsy drug.
Pfizer agreed to settle the class-action litigation pending in federal court in Newark, New Jersey, according to a filing yesterday. U.S. District Judge Faith Hochberg must approve the accord, which would cover purchasers of Neurontin from December 2002 to August 2008.
The drugmaker delayed competition by “improperly listing certain patents with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, engaging in illegal promotion and sales of Neurontin for unapproved uses, filing and maintaining sham litigations with respect to certain patents, and making misrepresentations to the patent courts,” according to the 12-year-old complaint.
In agreeing to pay $190 million, plus interest, New York-based Pfizer denied wrongdoing and maintained that its conduct was “reasonable and based upon independent, legitimate business and economic justifications,” according to the filing.
The case is In re Neurontin Antitrust Litigation, 02-cv-01390, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Newark).
For more, click here.
Google’s Suit Against Rockstar to Remain in California Court
Google Inc. won a round in its patent dispute with Rockstar Consortium, a group created by Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. and other technology companies to acquire patents from Nortel Networks Corp. in 2011.
A federal judge in California on April 17 ruled that Google’s case seeking a declaration of non-infringement can go forward in California despite Rockstar’s contention that jurisdiction was improper.
Rockstar, based in Ottawa, initially sued Google, along with Huawei Investment & Holding Co. and affiliates, Asustek Computer Inc., ZTE Corp., HTC Corp., Samsung Electronics Co., LG Electronics Inc., and Pantech Co. for patent infringement last October in the Eastern District of Texas.
While Google in February filed a motion to dismiss the Texas suit, the Mountain View, California-based company separately filed a motion in a California federal court seeking a declaration that it wasn’t infringing Rockstar’s patents. Rockstar sought to dismiss the case, claiming the California court lacked jurisdiction.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on April 17 denied Rockstar’s motion, finding sufficient contacts with California to retain the case. “The Northern District of California has the greater interest in this litigation because the claims here will ‘call into question the work and reputation of several individuals residing in or conducting business in this community,’” Wilken held, citing a 2009 ruling of the Federal Circuit.
The case is Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium U.S. LP, 13-cv-05933, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland). The Texas case is Rockstar Consortium U.S. LP v. Google Inc., 13-cv-00893, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall).
Digital Ally Files Appeal in Utility Patent Litigation
Digital Ally Inc. a maker of digital security products for law enforcement, plans to appeal a Kansas federal court ruling dismissing its patent case against Utility Associates Inc.
Digital Ally sued Tucker, Georgia-based Utility in October seeking a ruling that its mobile video surveillance system didn’t infringe a Utility patent covering a mobile digital information system.
U.S. District Judge Sam Crow said in an April 9 opinion that Kansas wasn’t the proper place to sue and dismissed the case.
The case is Digital Ally Inc. v. Utility Associates Inc., 13-cv-2550, U.S. District Court, District of Kansas (Topeka).
For more patent news, click here.
BBC America Sued Over ‘Orphan Black’ Television Series
BBC America, along with Temple Street Productions and two individuals, were sued for copyright infringement over “Orphan Black,” the network’s science-fiction television series revolving around clones.
Stephen Hendricks filed the suit in federal court in Los Angeles April 17, just days before the premiere of the series’ second season.
Hendricks said in the filing that he wrote a screenplay involving clones and sent it to Temple Street in 2004. He said the similarities between his screenplay, “Double Duty,” and “Orphan Black” “are so substantial that it is a virtual statistical impossibility” the show “could have been created independently.”
Devin Johnson, a spokesman for BBC America, said in an e-mail that the company wouldn’t comment on the lawsuit. John Young, Temple Street’s managing director, said in a phone interview that the suit is without merit and the production company will fight it.
The case is Hendricks v. BBC America Inc., 14-cv-02989, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).
For more copyright news, click here. For trademark news, click here.
To contact the reporter on this story: Ellen Rosen in New York at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at email@example.com Andrew Dunn, Fred Strasser