When does a pile of sand become a heap? When is a portfolio of patents too many patents? Can using too many patents to compel generics to take a later entry date turn into monopolistic conduct? These questions lurk the heart of the antitrust litigation brought by buyers of the blockbuster drug, Humira®, against its manufacturer, AbbVie ($ABBV). The case is currently pending within the Northern District of Illinois (In Re: Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation, No. 19-cv-1873 (N.D. Ill.)). We previously blogged about related allegations before the case was filed when Boehringer Ingelheim raised them within its biosimilar litigation against AbbVie. On June 8, 2020, the Illinois federal court dismissed the antitrust action pursuant to AbbVie’s motion to dismiss. What are the takeaways from the case?
Read MoreThe Federal Circuit recently ruled on a case brought by Intellectual Ventures against Capital One ($COF). The case is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 2018-1367 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 10, 2019). While the underlying case arose out of IV’s assertion of its patents against Capital One, the appeal focuses on Capital One’s counterclaim that IV was an unlawful monopolist by aggregating a series of patents and asserting them through litigation. Capital One lost the appeal. But the question remains – how much teeth do antitrust counterclaims have against aggregating and enforcing patents through litigation?
Read More