Posted on 6 August 2020

In April 2020, Leason Ellis won two appeals and a motion to dismiss:

On April 3, in Sunrise Pharmaceutical v. Vision Pharma, the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s (D. N.J.) decision which granted our client Vision Pharma’s motion to dismiss the Complaint. Leason Ellis attorneys Cameron Reuber, Henry Gabathuler (who argued the appeal), and Christina Sauerborn represented Vision Pharma. Vision Pharma, was alleged to have engaged in false advertising, unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective economic relations and trade libel based on statements made in a press release. Read the decision here:

Vision Pharma Third Circuit Decision

On April 9, in EMED Technologies v. Repro-Med Systems, Inc. d/b/a KORU Medical Systems, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s (E.D. Tex.) Order granting our client Repro-Med Systems’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. Our attorneys Robert Isackson, Matthew Kaufman, Henry Gabathuler, Hoda Rifai-Bashjawish, and Christina Sauerborn worked on the appeal on behalf of Repro-Med Systems. EMED Technologies Corporation alleged that our client RMS Medical’s needle sets, approximately 60 different products, infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,961,476 and sought unspecified damages. You can read more about the Federal Circuit Decision in a IP Law360 article that quotes Robert Isackson here: https://www.law360.com/articles/1262157/fed-circ-backs-edtx-decision-clearing-needle-co-in-ip-suit. The Decision can be read here:

EMED v RMS 476 Appeal – Decision – Affirmed (1)

On April 10, in National Products Inc. v. Mamiya America Corporation in the Western District of Washington, Judge Rothstein issued an Order granting our client Mamiya America Corporation’s (“Mac Group”) motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction in a trade dress infringement lawsuit involving the hourglass shape of double socket mount arm products. The Court agreed with the arguments advanced by Leason Ellis attorneys Yuval Marcus and Lori Cooper that National Products’ allegations of a single sale by Mac Group in the State of Washington of two allegedly infringing products for a total of $67 was not sufficient basis to subject Mac Group to personal jurisdiction in Washington. A copy of the Court’s Order can be found here:

19-cv-01340 Dkt. 30 Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss