Litigation Details for Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Research Development Foundation (D. Nev. 2021)

Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Research Development Foundation (D. Nev. 2021)

Docket		Date Filed	2021-12-23
Court	District Court, D. Nevada	Date Terminated
Cause	28:2201 Declaratory Judgment	Assigned To	Richard Franklin Boulware II
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To	Daniel J. Albregts
Patents	9,585,838
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Research Development Foundation (D. Nev. 2021)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2021-12-23	152	Order AND Order on Motion for Judgment AND Order on Motion for Summary Judgment AND Order on Motion for Summary Judgment	Office issued Patent No. 12 9,585,838 on March 7, 2017, which described this MVL production. ECF No. 18-4…last-to-expire patents. Id. 20 21 utilized patent, and one living, unutilized patent application” and…’495 patent is related to the same field of technology as the ’572 21 patent and the ’838 patent. ECF … The ’495 patent is not necessarily related to the ’572 patent. The ’495 patent’s disclosure 5 …whether the patent that Pacira uses to 4 manufacture 200L EXPAREL is “related to” the patent RDF previously	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Research Development Foundation (D. Nev. 2021)

Based on the search results, here is a summary of the key points in the Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Research Development Foundation case:

• This is a declaratory judgment action filed by Pacira Pharmaceuticals against Research Development Foundation (RDF) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

• The case arises from a long-standing assignment agreement between Pacira and RDF from 1994, where RDF assigned certain intellectual property to Pacira in exchange for royalties on some of Pacira's revenues.

• The dispute centers around whether Pacira owes royalties to RDF for its product EXPAREL, an anesthetic manufactured using two processes - a 45-liter (45L) process and a 200-liter (200L) process.

• Pacira claims it no longer owes royalties to RDF for EXPAREL made after December 24, 2021, when a key patent expired. RDF disagrees and believes it is still owed royalties.

• The court ruled there is no genuine dispute that the agreements are unenforceable regarding EXPAREL manufactured using the 45L process.

• However, there remains a genuine dispute over whether Pacira owes royalties on EXPAREL manufactured using the 200L process, as it's unclear if the patent used for 200L EXPAREL is "related to" the patent RDF previously assigned to Pacira.

• The court denied RDF's motion for summary judgment and granted Pacira's motion for partial summary judgment.

• Discovery issues have arisen, with RDF filing motions to compel production of certain documents from Pacira and to reopen discovery. The court denied these motions as untimely.

• The case involves complex patent and contract interpretation issues regarding whether newer patents used by Pacira are "related to" or "improvements" on the original assigned patents, which would trigger royalty obligations.

• As of the latest available information, the case was proceeding toward trial on the remaining disputed issues.