Judge Sweet Denies Motion To Further Amend Complaint

Ferring B.V. et al. v. Allergan, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 1:12-cv-02650-RWS (Dkt. 88)

In a dispute dating from 2003 concerning the ownership of patent involving desmopressin, a synthetic hormone used to treat excessive urine production, Judge Sweet denied plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs proposed many counts, including breach of common law duty, breach of contract, and interference with contractual relations. The rulings with respect to patent issues were:

  1. Rejecting patent ownership claims based on replevin. Plaintiffs hoped that the replevin claim would not be time-barred, as “demand and refusal” did not occur until 2012. “[W]here a plaintiff is essentially seeking enforcement of the bargain, the action should proceed under a contract theory.”
  2. Rejected patent ownership claims as futile because of laches.
  3. Rejected conversion claims with respect to inventions, as “an idea cannot be converted.”

The articles on our Website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice.