Sinorgchem v. ITC & Flexsys America – Update.
Flexsys has issued a press release responding to the CAFC’s recent decision regarding the patent infringement suit with Sinorgchem. See previous AT! posts on the ongoing litigation here , here, and here.
An excerpt from the Flexsys press release follows:
ST. LOUIS – December 27, 2007 — Solutia Inc. today announced that its Flexsys subsidiary will soon be filing a petition for rehearing by all of the judges of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). This matter involves Flexsys’ ongoing patent infringement dispute with Sinorgchem regarding process technology for the manufacture of 4-ADPA and its PPD derivatives. In July 2006, the International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled in favor of Flexsys. Last week, a three-judge panel of the CAFC ruled 2-1 that Sinorgchem had not literally infringed Flexsys’ patents, and remanded the case to the ITC to determine whether Sinorgchem had infringed under the doctrine of equivalents.
“We will be moving quickly to file a petition for rehearing,” said Tim Wessel, vice president, Antidegradants and Crystex®. “Importantly, the ITC exclusion order that prohibits Sinorgchem’s importation of 4-ADPA and 6PPD into the United States remains in full effect. We agree with the strongly worded dissent that the ITC decision should be upheld.”
Notably, a patent infringement action against Sinorgchem Co. and South Korean tire maker Korea Kumho Petrochemical Company is also pending before the U.S. District Court (N.D. Ohio) and will likely follow the ITC case when litigation relating to Sinorgchem’s appeal of the ITC ruling is completed.
JW Note: It appears likely that the petition for rehearing en banc (full bench) by Flexsys will be granted, particularly in view of Judge Newman’s compelling dissent in the panel opinion. From a practitioner’s standpoint, the outcome of this matter should be very interesting indeed.