Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Patent fights between basement inventors and big corporations tend to be emotional affairs. Dr. Bruce Saffran’s infringement lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson Inc. and its Cordis subsidiary, which climaxed in a $593 million loss for J&J in 2011, was no exception. It’s pretty apparent from court filings that the case slipped away from defense counsel at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler at trial. Saffran, a Philadelphia-area radiologist who obtained medical device patents as a young resident in the 1990s, won the jury’s sympathy, and J&J’s lawyers were unable to stop him.

J&J’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has been a totally different ballgame. Instead of emotionally charged testimony, there was enough technical jargon flying around at oral argument to make your head hurt. And, this time around, J&J’s lawyers at Patterson Belknap, led by Gregory Diskant, came out firmly on top.

As we reported, a Federal Circuit panel ruled 3-0 on April 4 that J&J drug-eluting cardiac stents don’t infringe Saffran’s patent. The court determined that the U.S. district judge who oversaw the case adopted a faulty claim construction. Under the proper claim construction, no reasonable jury could find that J&J infringed, the Federal Circuit concluded.

Barring further appeals, Saffran’s six-year old battle with J&J has come to an abrupt end. And the ruling almost certainly signals the end to a parallel infringement case Saffran brought against Abbott Laboratories Inc.

Before you feel too bad for Saffran, recall that he secured a $50 million settlement with Boston Scientific Corporation in 2009. Like J&J, Boston Scientific lost a $501 million jury verdict to Saffran in 2008. Saffran probably settled because he feared that the megaverdict wouldn’t hold up on appeal.

The April 4 ruling is a vindication for Diskant, since he represented J&J at trial along with his partner Scott Howard. "We’re enormously grateful to our client for standing by throughout this long process," Diskant said on Thursday. "Even for a company like Johnson & Johnson, $600 million is a lot of money."

The 2011 trial was clearly a frustrating one for Diskant. Before trial, he moved for summary judgment on the key question of whether J&J’s alleged infringement was willful. He worried that if the claim went to the jury, Saffran would be able to offer inflammatory testimony about how J&J stole his ideas. The trial judge refused to grant J&J summary judgment on willfulness. But, in an odd twist, the judge ended up siding with J&J on the willfulness question after the evidence came in.

This premium content is locked for
The American Lawyer subscribers only.

  • Subscribe now to enjoy unlimited access to The American Lawyer content,
  • 5 free articles* across the ALM Network every 30 days,
  • Exclusive access to other free ALM publications
  • And exclusive discounts on ALM events and publications.

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?
Interested in customizing your subscription with Law.com All Access?
Contact our Sales Professionals at 1-855-808-4530 or send an email to groupsales@alm.com to learn more.

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2017 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.