Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, NORTHERN DIVISION * CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. * KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CIVIL NO.: WDQ-04-3521

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. ("Classen") sued King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("King"), Elan Corporation, PLC, and Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Elan") for patent infringement. King have counterclaimed alleging noninfringement and unenforceability of Classen's patents. Pending are: 1) King's Elan and

motion for summary judgment; 2) Elan's motion for partial summary judgment; 3) Elan's motion to amend its answer; 4) Elan's motion to file a supplemental reply in support of its motion to amend its answer; and 5) King and Elan's motions to bifurcate. For the following reasons, King's motion for summary judgment will be granted; King's motion to bifurcate will be denied; Elan's motion for partial summary judgment will be denied; Elan's motion to file a supplemental reply in support of its motion to amend its answer will be granted; Elan's motion to amend its answer will be granted; and Elan's motion to bifurcate 1

will be denied.

I.

Background Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. ("Classen") is a Maryland

corporation that has developed and patented methods for identifying and commercializing new uses of existing drugs. Complaint, p. 1. Classen is the holder of Patents 6,219,674 B1,

"System for Creating and Managing Proprietary Product Data" (the "674 patent"), and 6,584,472 B2, "Method, System and Article for Creating and Managing Proprietary Product Data" (the "472 patent"). Id. The 674 patent was issued on April 17, 2001. Id. The

472 patent was issued on June 23, 2004.

Classen alleges that King and Elan infringed the 674 and 472 patents in their development and sale of the muscle relaxant Skelaxin. Id at 3. King acquired Skelaxin from Elan in June,

2003 and is now solely responsible for its manufacture, marketing and sale. Plaintiff's Opposition, p. 8. Classen has not alleged

that King was involved in the research and development of Skelaxin.

II.

King's Motion for Summary Judgment King has moved for summary judgment arguing that the 17

patent claims that Classen alleges King infringes are all dependent claims and that Classen has failed to establish that

2

King infringed any independent claims.

Classen responds that: 1)

King directly infringes the 674 and 472 patents under 35 U.S.C.

Download Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al..pdf

Maryland Law