Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 DECEMBER 2013

WilmerHale Intellectual Property Litigation Experience Report 2013

WilmerHale
WilmerHale
Contributor
WilmerHale

WilmerHale

WilmerHale's London office was established more than 40 years ago. With lawyers qualified in the...

View firm profile
Explore more from WilmerHale

In April 2013, the firm achieved victory when Judge Gary Allen Feess of the Central District of California dismissed Classen Immunotherapies, Inc’s ("Classen") patent infringement claims against our client Somaxon Pharmaceuticals with prejudice.

United StatesIntellectual Property

CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC. V. SOMAXON PHARMACEUTICALS
2:12-cv-06643-GAF-PLA, US District Court, Central District of California
In April 2013, the firm achieved victory when Judge Gary Allen Feess of the Central District of California dismissed Classen Immunotherapies, Inc's ("Classen") patent infringement claims against our client Somaxon Pharmaceuticals with prejudice. The two asserted Classen patents purport to claim methods of gathering, analyzing, and commercializing adverse event data. The Court dismissed Classen's claims on the grounds that Somaxon's collection and analysis of clinical data for its insomnia medication Silenor® fell within the "safe harbor" of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), which does not permit infringement suits for activities that are reasonably related to submission of information to the Food and Drug Administration. The Court also credited Somaxon's arguments that Classen could not prove infringement of its claimed methods by improperly

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from