Jury Awards Johnson & Johnson Record Verdict In Patent Suit. If you ever wondered why it cost so much to fill a prescription, you might be interested to know that on June 30, 2009, a U.S. federal jury returned a $1.67 billion verdict against Abbott Labs in a patent lawsuit brought by J&J. The case involves Humira, Abbott's blockbuster drug that is a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, psoriasis, and other autoimmune disorders. The drug competes with J&J's Remicade. Humira is Abbott’s top-selling product, and is expected to generate up to $5.4 billion in sales this year. J&J is not seeking to block sales of Humira, but only to share in the profits. Even if after paying the damages, Abbott would still make a huge profit. After five hours of deliberations, the jury found willful infringement and awarded J&J $1.17 billion in lost profits and $504 million in royalties. The J&J patent expires in two years. Abbott plans to appeal. The award breaks the previous record for a jury verdict in a patent suit of $1.52 billion against Microsoft, which was later tossed by the trial judge.
"Business Methods Patents" Face Supreme Review. On June 1, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review its standards for granting patents for methods of doing business in Bilski v. Doll. The decision could be the most important patent case in the last 50 years, impacting significant parts of the economy. The inventors appealed to the high court after being denied a patent on their computerized method for using weather data to predict commodities prices and energy costs. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld en banc (9-3) the original rejection by the Board of Examiners, ruling that the method was too abstract to be patented. The U.S. Solicitor General urged the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear the case, saying the invention was clearly not patentable, and the case would not affect other software or business methods. In urging the Supreme Court to review the case, the inventors said the CAFC’s decision put tens of thousands of patents at risk. The Court is expected to review the case during the next session, which begins in October.
