Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01511/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01511-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE ABBOTT LABORATORIES NORVIR

ANTI-TRUST LITIGATION

 /

No. C 04-1511 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO

ESTOP DEFENDANT FROM

ASSERTING INVENTION

DATE OTHER THAN

DECEMBER 2, 1993

Plaintiffs John Doe 1, John Doe 2 and the Service Employees

International Union Health and Welfare Fund move to estop Defendant

Abbott Laboratories from asserting an invention date other than

December 2, 1993 for U.S. Patent No. 5,886,036 (the ‘036 patent). 

The matter was taken under submission on the papers. Having

considered all of the papers submitted by the parties, the Court

denies Plaintiffs’ motion.

BACKGROUND

This is an antitrust case arising from Defendant’s 400% price

increase for Norvir, an anti-HIV drug it manufactures. Defendant

asserts the ‘036 patent as an affirmative defense to Plaintiffs’

claims of monopolization, unfair competition and unjust enrichment. 

Plaintiffs challenge the validity of that patent.

Case 4:04-cv-01511-CW Document 422 Filed 12/13/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

In April, 2007, Plaintiffs served Defendant with an

interrogatory stating, “For each claim in U.S. Patent No.

5,866,036, identify the date on which you assert the claimed

invention was conceived by the named inventors.” Wiebe Dec. Ex. A

at 6. In response, Defendant stated:

Abbott . . . is entitled to a constructive date of

conception of the invention claimed in the ‘036 patent by

at the latest December 2, 1993, the date of U.S. patent

application Ser. No. 08/158,587. . . . If and when

Plaintiffs put forth evidence making relevant or

disputing the conception of the invention by the named

inventors, Abbott reserves the right to amend and/or

supplement this answer.

Id. (emphasis in original). This response was subject to a number

of objections, including that Plaintiffs had not produced material

putting into dispute the validity of the ‘036 patent or provided

Defendant with notice of the bases on which they intended to

challenge the patent’s validity. Plaintiffs did not raise with the

Court the issue of whether Defendant’s responses were sufficient.

In September, 2007, after fact discovery had concluded,

Plaintiffs served their expert’s report. The report discusses

issues relevant to the ‘036 patent’s validity, analyzing prior art

as of December 2, 1993. After receiving the report, Defendant

informed Plaintiffs that it intended to assert an invention date of

December 29, 1992, producing for the first time a patent

application, of which the 1993 application was a continuation-inpart, bearing this new date. Defendant’s expert’s rebuttal report

used the 1992 invention date when analyzing the issues surrounding

the validity of the ‘036 patent.

Case 4:04-cv-01511-CW Document 422 Filed 12/13/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs argue that, because of its responses to their

interrogatories, Defendant should be estopped from asserting an

invention date other than December 2, 1993. Judicial estoppel

provides that “[w]here a party assumes a certain position in a

legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may

not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a

contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the

party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him.” 

New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001) (quoting Davis v.

Wakelee, 156 U.S. 680, 689 (1895)). In order for the doctrine to

apply, however, the party’s later position must be “clearly

inconsistent” with its earlier position. Id.; see also Abercrombie

& Fitch Co. v. Moose Creek, Inc., 486 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2007)

(setting out other factors supporting the application of judicial

estoppel).

Defendant’s interrogatory responses asserted that Defendant

was entitled to an invention date of, “at the latest,” December 2,

1993. Given the plain meaning of this language, which was

italicized in the response, Defendant left open the possibility of

claiming an invention date prior to December 2, 1993. Therefore,

it was not “clearly inconsistent” with the interrogatory responses

for Defendant later to assert an invention date of December 29,

2002. Estoppel is therefore not appropriate.

It is true that, by using the “at the latest” language,

Defendant avoided committing itself to a particular invention date,

Case 4:04-cv-01511-CW Document 422 Filed 12/13/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

As Defendant points out, Plaintiffs also attempted to avoid

committing themselves to specific contentions concerning their

claim that the ‘306 patent is invalid.

4

perhaps impermissibly.1 However, Plaintiffs were entitled to

challenge the sufficiency of Defendant’s responses by filing a

motion to compel or otherwise seeking relief from the Court. They

did not do so, instead choosing to proceed with their expert report

based on an indefinite response that was couched in objections. In

light of the clear language of the response and the contemporaneous

objections qualifying it, the Court will not hold Defendant to the

December 2, 1993 date. However, the Court will give Plaintiffs an

opportunity to respond to the new date.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to estop

Defendant from asserting an invention date other than December 2,

1993 for the ‘306 patent (Docket No. 386) is DENIED. Because

Defendant’s dispositive motion is due shortly, the parties shall,

within a week of the date of this order, propose a schedule that

will give them an adequate opportunity to complete their expert

reports prior to initiating the dispositive motion process. If

they are unable to agree, each side shall submit its proposal three

days thereafter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/13/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-01511-CW Document 422 Filed 12/13/07 Page 4 of 4