Bioverativ Inc. v. CSL Behring LLC ( 2021 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE BIOVERATIV INC., BIOVERATIV THERAPEUTICS INC., and BIOVERATIV U.S. LLC, Plaintiffs, y Civil Action No. 17-914-RGA 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 (DI. 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'l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 14 F.4th 13:23, 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 SR/, erroneous) standard of “wanton, malicious, and bad-faith behavior” in granting summary judgment of no 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., Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec 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.’ (D.I. 349 at 6). Bioverativ also argues that there are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether CSL’s defenses are reasonable. (/d.). Bioverativ does not provide any evidence that CSL’s invalidity defenses are unreasonable or that CSL has no reasonable basis for asserting non- infringement. (See id.; see also D.J. 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 14" day of December, 2021. | found that CSL had not engaged in any “copying” while developing Idelvion®. (D.I. 288 at 8). Bioverativ does not challenge this finding.