Leason Ellis Takes Over Defense of Multi-District Patent Infringement Litigation and Secures Summary Judgment and Attorney Fee Award

Our client Repro Med Systems engaged our firm to conduct an independent review of a suite of lawsuits involving patent infringement, unfair competition and anti-trust claims relating to the sale in subcutaneous infusion needle sets and related pumps, filed by a primary competitor and then subsequently asked us to take over the defense of these cases.

  
• In the patent case pending in the Eastern District of Texas, after claim construction we moved for and prevailed on summary judgment of non-infringement. (link) That decision was appealed, briefed and unanimously affirmed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. (link)
• In a second patent case pending in the Southern District of New York, we argued and obtained a favorable claim construction and then filed and prevailed on summary judgment of non-infringement. (link)
• In both the Texas and New York cases we also moved for a declaration that each case was exceptional and for recovery of attorney fees. Based on our motion papers, the New York Magistrate Judge recommended awarding our client about $1.0 million in fees and expenses (link), whereas the Texas court stayed consideration until after its appeal was decided.
• Finally, in the anti-trust case that had been transferred from the Eastern District of Texas to the Eastern District of California, we moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state actionable claims and lack of personal jurisdiction over the client’s former CEO. Following the Federal Circuit win, we leveraged that win and the pending motions to dismiss the antitrust case and for fees in the New York and Texas patent cases to secure a settlement of all four cases for our client.

Leason Ellis’ team was led by partners Robert Isackson and Matthew Kaufman, with assistance from associates Hoda Rifai-Bashjawish, Henry Gabathuler and Christina Sauerborn. See Emed Technologies Corp. v. Repro-Med Systems, Inc., Case 1:18-cv-5880-LGS-RWL (SDNY); Emed Technologies Corp. v. Repro-Med Systems, Inc., 2019-2145 (Fed. Cir.); Emed Technologies Corp. v. Repro-Med Systems, Inc., Case 2:15-cv-01167-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)