Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 512 Filed 10/17/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 21712
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
`
`
`
`AMENDED1 FINAL JUDGMENT
`A jury trial commenced in the above-captioned case on April 4, 2022, and on April 8, 2022,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00337-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS
`LP, and ASTRAZENECA UK LTD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant,
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`the jury reached and returned its unanimous verdict finding that Defendant Daiichi Sankyo
`
`Company, Limited (“DSC”) infringed at least one of Claims 1–5, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,808,039 (the “ʼ039 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Claims”); that such infringement was
`
`willful; that none of the Asserted Claims were invalid; and that Plaintiff Seagen, Inc. (“Seagen”)
`
`is owed a reasonable royalty of $41,820,000.00 for DSC’s infringement from October 20, 2020
`
`through March 31, 2022. (Dkt. No. 370).
`
`The Court conducted a separate bench trial on June 28, 2022 regarding DSC’s prosecution
`
`laches and § 112(b) defenses. On July 15, 2022, the Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions
`
`of Law, wherein the Court held that DSC had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`
`1 The Court enters this Amended Final Judgment to include the relief granted in Dkt. No. 496, as clarified in the
`amended version of that order (Dkt. No. 511), to the Final Judgment entered by the Court on July 19, 2022 (Dkt. No.
`432). This Amended Final Judgment supersedes the prior Final Judgment (Dkt. No. 432) and resolves all issues before
`the Court.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
`
`
`
`AMENDED1 FINAL JUDGMENT
`A jury trial commenced in the above-captioned case on April 4, 2022, and on April 8, 2022,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00337-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS
`LP, and ASTRAZENECA UK LTD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant,
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`the jury reached and returned its unanimous verdict finding that Defendant Daiichi Sankyo
`
`Company, Limited (“DSC”) infringed at least one of Claims 1–5, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,808,039 (the “ʼ039 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Claims”); that such infringement was
`
`willful; that none of the Asserted Claims were invalid; and that Plaintiff Seagen, Inc. (“Seagen”)
`
`is owed a reasonable royalty of $41,820,000.00 for DSC’s infringement from October 20, 2020
`
`through March 31, 2022. (Dkt. No. 370).
`
`The Court conducted a separate bench trial on June 28, 2022 regarding DSC’s prosecution
`
`laches and § 112(b) defenses. On July 15, 2022, the Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions
`
`of Law, wherein the Court held that DSC had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`
`1 The Court enters this Amended Final Judgment to include the relief granted in Dkt. No. 496, as clarified in the
`amended version of that order (Dkt. No. 511), to the Final Judgment entered by the Court on July 19, 2022 (Dkt. No.
`432). This Amended Final Judgment supersedes the prior Final Judgment (Dkt. No. 432) and resolves all issues before
`the Court.
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 512 Filed 10/17/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 21713
`
`the ʼ039 Patent was unenforceable due to prosecution laches or invalid under § 112(b). (Dkt. No.
`
`431).
`
`Thereafter, Seagen filed a Motion for Judgment for Supplemental Damages and Ongoing
`
`Royalties (the “Damages Motion”). (Dkt. No. 443). On August 21, 2023, the Court granted in part
`
`Seagen’s Damages Motion and found that supplemental damages and an ongoing royalty award
`
`were appropriate. (Dkt. No. 496). Specifically, the Court awarded Seagen supplemental damages
`
`and an ongoing royalty from DSC at the rate of 8% for U.S. sales of Enhertu by DSC’s wholly
`
`owned subsidiary Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (“DSI”) for the period from April 1, 2022 (the
`
`commencement of trial) through November 4, 2024 (the end of the ’039 Patent’s life). (Id. at 14).
`
`The Court also ordered that DSC provide Seagen with an accounting of the sales by DSI of Enhertu
`
`in the United States from April 1, 2022 through the date of that order (August 21, 2023). (Id.). The
`
`Court further ordered DSC to provide Seagen with an update of DSI’s sales of Enhertu in the
`
`United States every three months from August 21, 2023 through November 4, 2024. (Id.).
`
`Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in accordance with the
`
`jury’s unanimous verdict and the entirety of the record, the Court hereby ORDERS and ENTERS
`
`JUDGMENT as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`DSC has infringed at least one of the Asserted Claims;
`
`The Asserted Claims are not invalid;
`
`DSC’s infringement was willful;
`
`Seagen is hereby awarded damages from and against DSC and shall accordingly
`
`have and recover from DSC the sum of $41,820,000.00 U.S. Dollars as a reasonable
`
`royalty for sales from October 20, 2020 through March 31, 2022;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 512 Filed 10/17/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 21714
`
`5.
`
`Seagen is hereby awarded supplemental damages and an ongoing royalty at the rate
`
`of 8% from and against DSC for the sales of Enhertu in the United States by DSI
`
`for the period from April 1, 2022 through November 4, 2024, with such payments
`
`to be made no less frequently than quarterly;
`
`6.
`
`DSC shall provide Seagen with an accounting of the sales of Enhertu in the United
`
`States by DSI for the period from April 1, 2022 through August 21, 2023;
`
`7.
`
`DSC shall provide Seagen with an update of DSI’s sales of Enhertu in the United
`
`States every three months for the period from August 21, 2023 through November
`
`4, 2024;
`
`8.
`
`Notwithstanding the jury’s finding of willfulness, the Court having considered the
`
`totality of the circumstances together with the added material benefit of having
`
`presided throughout the jury trial and having seen both the same evidence and heard
`
`the same arguments as the jury, and mindful that enhancement is generally reserved
`
`for “egregious cases of culpable behavior,”2 concludes that enhancement of the
`
`compensatory award herein is not warranted under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and
`
`consequently, the Court elects not to enhance the damages awarded herein;
`
`9.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and Supreme Court guidance that “prejudgment
`
`interest shall ordinarily be awarded absent some justification for withholding such
`
`an award,”3 the Court awards pre-judgment interest applicable to all sums awarded
`
`herein, calculated at the 5-year U.S. Treasury Bill rate, compounded quarterly, from
`
`the date of infringement through the date of entry of this Judgment;4 and
`
`
`2 Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S.Ct. 1923, 1934 (2016).
`3 General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 657 (1983).
`4 See Nickson Indus., Inc. v. Rol Mfg. Co., Ltd., 847 F.2d 795, 800–801 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 512 Filed 10/17/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 21715
`
`10.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, the Court awards post-judgment interest applicable
`
`to all sums awarded herein, at the statutory rate, from the date of entry of this
`
`Judgment until paid.
`
`11.
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), Local Rule CV-54, and
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1920, Seagen is the prevailing party in this case and shall recover its
`
`costs from DSC. Seagen is directed to file its proposed Bill of Costs.
`
`All other requests for relief now pending and requested by either party but not specifically
`
`addressed herein are DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 17th day of October, 2023.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
