Court rules Insmed infringes Tercica IGF-1 process patent

By E. Janene Geiss

Philadelphia, July 5 - Tercica, Inc. said Wednesday the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued rulings on June 30 on summary judgment and claim construction in Tercica's patent infringement litigation against defendants Insmed Inc., Celtrix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Insmed Therapeutic Proteins, Inc.

In the case, Tercica has alleged that the defendants have infringed and are infringing three patents: U.S. Patent No. 6,331,414 (the 414; IGF-1 production process patent), U.S. Patent No. 5,187,151 (the 151; method of use patent) and U.S. Patent No. 5,258,287 (the 287; BP-3 production process patent), according to a company news release.

The court granted both of Tercica's motions for partial summary judgment, officials said.

The court ruled that Insmed's process for making Iplex literally infringes three claims of the 414 patent. The court also ruled that the 151 patent was valid over the prior art, and as a consequence, Insmed will have no prior art defense to challenge the patent's validity at the trial, officials said.

The court also denied four of Insmed's five motions for summary judgment, Tercica officials said.

In two motions, Insmed and its co-defendants requested the court to find that they did not infringe the 414 patent and the 151 patent. The court denied these motions.

In two other motions, the defendants requested that the court find that the 414 patent was invalid based on written description and utility defenses. Again, the court denied these motions.

In the fifth motion, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment to exclude from this case any liability of Celtrix, Insmed's predecessor, for its actions prior to its acquisition by Insmed, officials said.

"We defeated all of Insmed's motions on invalidity and non-infringement. All three patents therefore go into our planned November jury trial," Stephen N. Rosenfield, Tercica's general counsel and executive vice president of legal affairs, said in the release.

For Tercica to prevail, the jury need only find that Insmed infringed a single valid claim from the 414, the 151 or the 287 patent, Rosenfield added.

Insmed is a Glen Allen, Va., biopharmaceutical company.

Tercica is a Brisbane, Calif., biopharmaceutical company focused on endocrine health.

© 2015 Prospect News.
All content on this website is protected by copyright law in the U.S. and elsewhere. For the use of the person downloading only.
Redistribution and copying are prohibited by law without written permission in advance from Prospect News.
Redistribution or copying includes e-mailing, printing multiple copies or any other form of reproduction.