MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. v. FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC
OPINION AND ORDER granting 224 MOTION for Summary Judgment That Merck Holds Title to the '300 Patent by MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. and judgment is hereby entered in Plaintiff's favor, declaring that Merck holds all rights, title and interest in U.S Patent No. 5,952.300. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 10/28/2016. (JB, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.,
FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC,
Civil Action No. 14-4989 (SRC)
OPINION & ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the motion for summary judgment, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, by Plaintiff Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (“Merck”). For
the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted.
In brief, this case arises from a dispute over patent infringement between Merck and
Defendant Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (“Fresenius”). Merck now moves for summary judgment
that it holds all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 5,952,300 (the “’300 patent”).
In support of its motion, Merck points to a document from the United States Patent and
Trademark Office titled, “Patent Assignment Abstract of Title.” (Traupman Dec. Ex. N.) This
document clearly shows that ownership of the ’300 patent has been assigned to “Merck Sharp &
Dohme Corp.” (Id.)
In opposition, Fresenius contends that a material factual dispute precludes a grant of
summary judgment. There is, apparently, a confidential litigation settlement agreement between
Merck and another pharmaceutical company, Teva. Fresenius argues that, until Merck discloses
the contents of that agreement, one cannot know whether Merck did or did not give any patent
rights to Teva. In reply, Merck argues:
Fresenius’s opposition cites no facts that would create a genuine factual dispute
that Merck does not own the ’300 patent. Instead, Fresenius muses about the
patent rights that could be included in the litigation settlement agreement between
Merck and Teva.
(Pl.’s Reply Br. 1.) Merck is entirely correct. Fresenius seeks to oppose the motion for
summary judgment by voicing suspicions. “Unsupported assertions, conclusory allegations, or
mere suspicions are insufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment.” Betts v. New
Castle Youth Dev. Ctr., 621 F.3d 249, 252 (3d Cir. 2010). Rule 56 states:
(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is
genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions,
documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations,
stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence
of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence
to support the fact.
Fresenius has not met any of the requirements of Rule 56(c)(1) for supporting the assertion of a
Defendant has failed to defeat Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has
shown that it is entitled to Judgment as a matter of law. The motion for summary judgment will
For these reasons,
IT IS on this 28th day of October, 2016 hereby
ORDERED that Merck’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and Judgment is
hereby entered in Plaintiff’s favor, declaring that Merck holds all right, title, and interest in U.S.
Patent No. 5,952,300.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?