直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
    • AI + Finnegan
    • Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
    • Diligence, Licensing, and Opinions
    • Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
    • Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
    • Prosecution and Portfolio Management
    • Trademark and Brand Management
    • AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
    • Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
    • Communications
    • Consumer Goods and Services
    • Energy
    • Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure
    • Life Sciences
    • Transportation and Logistics
  • Experience

Experience

District court rules in favor of Finnegan client AbbVie

AbbVie Inc.

The Mathilda and Terence Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust

The Southern District of New York (Judge Paul A. Crotty) ruled in favor of Finnegan client AbbVie, in a declaratory judgment action against its licensor The Mathilda and Terence Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust (“Kennedy”). AbbVie brought this action because Kennedy claimed AbbVie would owe royalties on certain sales of its drug Humira®, despite AbbVie's assertion that the Kennedy patent at issue was invalid. Humira®is used by hundreds of thousands of patients to treat diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn’s disease, and had revenues of more than $9 billion worldwide in 2012. After a four-day bench trial, the court held all of the claims of the Kennedy patent at issue were invalid for obviousness-type double-patenting. The court entered final judgment declaring all the claims at issue invalid, and declaring AbbVie the prevailing party and awarding costs. In a separate declaratory judgment case, the patents were invalidated by summary judgment both were affirmed on appeal.

AbbVie Inc. v. The Mathilda and Terence Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, 1:11-cv-02541; 1:13-cv-01358, S.D.N.Y., Judge Crotty

AbbVie Inc. v. The Mathilda and Terence Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, 13-1545; 14-1672, Fed. Cir., Judges Chen, Dyk, Wallach, Taranto

Related Professionals

Cora R. Holt
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4334
Email
William B. Raich, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4210
Email

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Patent Litigation and Trials

Related Industries

Life Sciences

Pharmaceutical

Biologics

Related Experiences

District court enters judgment of noninfringement for Finnegan client Philips

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.

Federal Circuit reverses district court ruling of invalidity and upholds rulings on other grounds in favor of Finnegan client Eli Lilly and Co.

Eli Lilly and Company

Finnegan secures dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction for client SK Innovation

SK Innovation Co. Ltd.

Federal Circuit rules in favor of Finnegan clients Hyundai and Kia in a tire pressure monitoring system patent case

Hyundai Motor Co.; Kia Motors Corp.

ITC issues final determination in favor of Finnegan client SKC

SKC Kolon PI, Inc.

Federal Circuit rules in favor of Finnegan client in radial arm saw guard patent case

Michael S. Powell

Federal Circuit affirms claim construction and summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Finnegan client Pergo

Pergo LLC

Inter partes reexamination ruling affirmed in favor of Finnegan client MeadWestvaco

Kappos

District court grants summary judgment in favor of AstraZeneca finding invalid all asserted claims against anti-cholesterol drug Crestor®

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP