Judge Paul Crotty
A 1992 pact gave Centocor Inc. the right to grant sublicenses for uses covered by defendant trust's (Trust) '766 patent. Under a 2002 agreement Centocor granted the Abbvie plaintiffs (collectively Abbott) such a sublicense (the Centocor-Abbott Agreement). District court granted Abbott declaratory judgment that certain claims in the Trust's '442 patent were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting over the '766 patent. Citing China Auto Care v. China Auto Care (Caymans), ACE Capital Re Overseas v. Central United Life Ins. and In re Kinoshita & Co., the court stayed the Trust's counterclaims—not addressing the '442 patent's validity—pending arbitration. The subject arbitration provision's use of "or" showed that disputes "arising under" the Centocor-Abbott Agreement were distinguishable from those over that agreement's interpretation. Trust counterclaims grounded on Abbott's alleged improper calculation of royalties owed under the Centocor-Abbott Agreement, and on Abbott's breach of a March 2009 compact modifying that agreement by not adhering to its royalty calculation methodology, could not be said to "arise under" the Centocor-Abbott Agreement.
