This case concerns Eli Lilly's U.S. Patent No. 5,658,590, which claims a method of treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder by administering tomoxetine (atomoxetine), the active ingredient in Lilly's Strattera product. Generic drug manufacturers filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications seeking to market generic versions and certified under paragraph IV that the patent was invalid or unenforceable. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the defendants. The decision rested on findings that the patent failed to meet the utility requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and related enablement standards, as the specification did not provide sufficient evidence that a person of ordinary skill would accept the claimed therapeutic effects without further testing.
This case involves Eli Lilly & Co. suing several generic drug manufacturers for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,658,590, which covers methods of treating ADHD with atomoxetine. The defendants filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications to market generic versions and challenged the patent's validity and enforceability on grounds including inequitable conduct, anticipation, lack of enablement, obviousness, and non-infringement. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, granting in part the plaintiff's motion regarding no inequitable conduct, denying summary judgment on enablement and obviousness due to factual disputes, and analyzing indirect infringement after finding no direct infringement by the defendants.
This case involved Plaintiff Tyrone Menter's request for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after a Social Security disability benefits claim was remanded following appeals. The court granted the application in part, awarding $8,753.90 in fees and $455 in costs rather than the full requested amount of over $17,000. The core reasoning was that the claimed 124 hours were excessive for a routine Social Security case, as typical expenditures are 20-40 hours and even adjusted amounts in slightly complex matters fall short of the inefficient time spent on briefing and review by experienced counsel and law students.
The case concerned a motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after the plaintiff prevailed in a Social Security appeal. Plaintiff, represented pro bono by Rutgers Urban Legal Clinic, sought fees for work by counsel and law students. The government argued fees should be paid only to the prevailing party to allow offset of any delinquent debts owed by the plaintiff. The court granted fees of $30,217.95 directly to pro bono counsel. It reasoned that Third Circuit precedent requires awards to go to such counsel to avoid windfalls to plaintiffs and that the government had not shown its position was substantially justified.
In Raspa v. Home Depot, plaintiffs Antonio and Patricia Raspa sued Home Depot in New Jersey state court after Antonio was attacked and bitten by a raccoon while shopping there, claiming severe physical and emotional injuries along with loss of consortium, without specifying a damages amount. Defendant removed the case to federal district court under diversity jurisdiction, asserting that the amount in controversy likely exceeded $75,000. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that the defendant had not shown to a legal certainty that the jurisdictional threshold was met. The court denied the motion to remand, applying the standards clarified in Frederico v. Home Depot for determining the amount in controversy in removal cases and finding that the defendant had satisfied its burden.
In this case, former Quest Diagnostics employees Douglas Boyle and Anthony Gouveia sued the company for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing after they reported material errors in financial projections related to Quest's acquisition of Unilab, which they claimed led to retaliation including diminished roles, exclusion from meetings, and constructive termination. The plaintiffs had also asserted a claim under New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) for whistleblower retaliation. The court granted Quest's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the breach of contract claims alleging wrongful termination and the implied covenant claim because they were waived by the CEPA claim as they arose from the same retaliatory facts. However, the court denied dismissal of the breach of contract claim regarding Quest's alleged failure to promote Boyle to Regional Vice President and failure to pay amounts due under the contracts, finding those claims required different proofs than the CEPA claim and were not waived.
