CareFirst of Maryland, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia rules on Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech’s motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment order and motions in limine. The court grants reconsideration in part, vacates the prior ruling concerning the alleged unlawful acquisition of Momenta manufacturing patents, and grants summary judgment for J&J on that theory. The court also addresses the admissibility of privilege-log entries, document metadata, attorney-client privilege invocations, and evidence concerning pretrial disputes.

Holdings

1. Johnson & Johnson was entitled to reconsideration, and CareFirst failed to present admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute that Johnson & Johnson acquired the Momenta manufacturing patents with intent to exclude rivals on a basis other than efficiency.
2. CareFirst may not use the Jostins and Granlund studies as a separate basis for Walker Process liability because the Court denied leave to amend to add that theory and CareFirst represented that it would not allege withholding those references as a separate source or theory of fraud.
3. The Court denied reconsideration of its determination that a reasonable jury could infer intent to defraud the PTO from Dr. Ralat's deletion of the Jostins and Granlund studies and his explanation that the goals of an FDA submission differed from those of a PTO submission.
4. The Court denied reconsideration of its determination that the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to find that a duty-bound Johnson & Johnson employee knew the Ochsenkühn study was material and deliberately withheld it from the PTO.
5. Privilege-log and metadata evidence may be admitted to show the fact and timing of document creation, download, or communication, subject to foundation and proper family-context evidence, but may not be used to invite an adverse inference about the substance of privileged communications.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Johnson & Johnson was entitled to reconsideration and summary judgment on CareFirst's monopolization theory based on the acquisition of four Momenta manufacturing patents.
2. Whether CareFirst could rely on the Jostins and Granlund studies as a basis for its Walker Process fraud claim after the Court denied leave to amend the complaint to add those studies.
3. Whether Dr. Luis Ralat's deletion of the Jostins and Granlund studies could support a reasonable inference of intent to defraud the PTO.
4. Whether the evidence created a genuine dispute regarding a duty-bound employee's knowledge of the materiality of the Ochsenkühn study and deliberate withholding of it from the PTO.
5. What evidence concerning privilege logs, metadata, privilege invocations, pretrial disputes, and deposition testimony could be presented at trial.

Disposition

vacated