Martek BioSci. Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., No. 08-1459

In a patent infringement action involving patents relating to specified microorganisms that are useful for the commercial production of an essential omega-3 fatty acid, district court's judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) as substantial evidence support the jury's finding that the certain patent claims were entitled to the priority date of a 1988 application; 2) district court did not err in denying defendant's JMOL motion as plaintiff presented substantial evidence of expert testimony based on the accused process supporting the jury's infringement verdict; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that defendant could not corroborate an expert's testimony and thus excluded defendant's evidence of prior inventorship; 4) district court did not commit legal error in construing the term "non-chloride sodium salt"; 5) district court erred in granting the motion for JMOL as to certain patent claims as evidence supports the jury's implicit finding that one need not perform undue experimentation to practice these claims, as well as the jury's ultimate conclusion that defendant failed to prove invalidity of those claims by clear and convincing evidence; and 6) district court's claim construction for the term "animal" is erroneous as the proper construction is the one explicitly provided by the patentee.   

Read Martek BioSci. Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., No. 08-1459

Appellate Information

Appeal from:  United States District Court for the District of Delaware

Decided September 3, 2009

Judges

Before Newman, Lourie, Rader, Gajarsa,  Moore, CIrcuit Judges. 
Opinion by Gajarsa, Circuit Judge.   

Counsel

For Appellant: Gregory A. Castania, Jones Day, Gidon D. Stern, and Samuel B. Abrams, Dechert LLP

For Appellees: George Pazuniak, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice PLLC, Oleh V. Bilynsky and Stephen J. Mackenzie