Bioverativ Inc. et al v. CSL Behring LLC et al

Filing 365

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Bioverativ's Motion fro Reconsideration of Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement or Enhanced Damages (D.I. 349 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 12/14/2021. (nms)

Case 1:17-cv-00914-RGA-SRF Document 365 Filed 12/14/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 20673

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

BIOVERATIV INC., BIOVERATIV
THERAPEUTICS INC., and BIOVERATIV
U.S . LLC,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 17-914-RGA

V.

CSL BEHRING LLC, CSL BEHRING
GMBH, and CSL BEHRING LENGNAU
AG,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before me is Bioverativ's Motion for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment of No
Willful Infringement or Enhanced Damages (D.I. 349). I have considered the parties' briefing.
(D.I. 349,350, 352).
Bioverativ correctly states the law: " (T]he concept of 'willfulness' requires a jury to find
no more than deliberate or intentional infringement." SRI Int '!, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. , 14 F.4th
1323, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters. , Inc.,
946 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). Although I referenced the heightened (and with the
benefit of SRI, erroneous) standard of "wanton, malicious, and bad-faith behavior" in granting
summary judgment ofno willfulness (D.I. 288 at 6), my conclusion of no willfulness remains the
same under the correct standard.
While it is undisputed that CSL knew about the patents when they issued, knowledge of
the patents alone does not establish willfulness. See, e.g. , Intel!. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec
1

Case 1:17-cv-00914-RGA-SRF Document 365 Filed 12/14/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 20674

Corp. , 234 F. Supp. 3d 601 , 611-12 (D. Del. 2017). Bioverativ argues that "it should be
permitted to present evidence of CSL's conduct after the Asserted Patents issued to the jury," but
does not point to any evidence that CSL engaged in deliberate or intentional infringement. 1 (D.I.
349 at 6). Bioverativ also argues that there are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether
CSL's defenses are reasonable. (Id.). Bioverativ does not provide any evidence that CSL's
invalidity defenses are unreasonable or that CSL has no reasonable basis for asserting noninfringement. (See id.; see also D.I. 227 at 27); SRI, 14 F.4th at 1328-30 (upholding a jury
verdict of willful infringement where the plaintiff presented evidence that the defendant's
invalidity defenses were unreasonable and evidence that the defendant did not have any
reasonable basis for non-infringement).
For these reasons, I will deny Bioverativ's Motion for Reconsideration of Summary
Judgment of No Willful Infringement or Enhanced Damages. (D.I. 349).

Entered this 14th day of December, 2021.

1

I found that CSL had not engaged in any "copying" while developing Idelvion®. (D.I. 288 at
8). Bioverativ does not challenge this finding .
2