Crandall Technologies Alleges Patent Infringement Against Amgen

On Friday in the Central District of California, Crandall Technologies filed a complaint alleging infringement of the patent claimed to correspond to a delivery system for drug Repatha against Amgen.

Jerry Crandall, who is the counsel for Crandall Technologies, is named as the sole inventor for U.S. Patent Application Nos. 13/181,467 (the parent patent application) and 15/346,710 (the divisional patent application), both of which are assigned to Crandall Technologies. According to the plaintiff, its divisional patent covers the Pushtronex System, a complimentary delivery system for Repatha, an injectable prescription drug for adults with cardiovascular disease to reduce heart attack and stroke risk and cholesterol problems.

Amgen sells Repatha; however, Crandall Technologies alleged that the defendant also has been advertising or selling the Pushtronex System despite the plaintiff’s divisional patent.

Arguing that the defendant should have been aware of the divisional patent because of letters sent directly to the defendant and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s official postings of the patent, the plaintiff attempted its case for direct infringement through comparing the wording of the divisional patent to the function of the Pushtronex System. For example, the divisional patent covers a “self-defense system,” according to the complaint, and the Pushtronex System “functions to protect the user or the user’s interests, including protecting the user from great bodily harm, by injecting a dose of Repatha into a user’s body.” The complaint fully broke down the description of what kind of product the divisional patent covers and why the Pushtronex System is allegedly analogous to the description and thus infringing on the patent-in-suit.

The plaintiff also alleged contributory infringement against the defendant because it has continued to advertise and sell the product and offer information to medical professionals and patients on how to use it.

Relief requested by the plaintiff includes a permanent injunction to prohibit infringement of the divisional patent by the defendant and just compensation.