Abbott Biotechnology Ltd. v. Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc.
Docket: Civil Action No. 09-40089-FDS
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts; October 27, 2014; Federal District Court
A patent dispute involves plaintiffs Abbott Biotechnology Ltd. and AbbVie Inc. seeking a judgment against defendant Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. for patent infringement related to the drug Simponi, used in combination with methotrexate to treat rheumatoid arthritis. Centocor seeks declarations of non-infringement and invalidity of Abbott’s patents and has moved to bifurcate the trial, arguing that separating the issue of willfulness from the infringement claims would prevent jury confusion and save time. The court denied Centocor's motion to bifurcate, emphasizing that bifurcation is not routinely ordered and rests within the court's discretion. The ruling noted that the challenges associated with willfulness inquiries are common in patent cases and do not warrant separating this trial. Unlike typical cases where defendants face a dilemma regarding the advice-of-counsel defense and potential waiver of attorney-client privilege, Centocor has already waived this privilege by asserting the defense. The court also highlighted potential prejudice to Abbott from bifurcation, including delays and the need to present overlapping evidence in two trials. The court concluded that without compelling reasons for bifurcation, the motion would be denied. Additionally, the court acknowledged a pending summary judgment motion from Centocor regarding willfulness but prioritized the bifurcation issue due to its implications for trial scheduling. The decision aligns with empirical findings that indicate a low incidence of bifurcation in patent jury trials.