Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition Prevails in Appeal of Federal Court Ruling Regarding Muscle Building Patents

Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition Prevails in Appeal of Federal Court Ruling Regarding Muscle Building Patents

Federal Circuit decision entered, affirming decision from Eastern District of Texas that turned on patent attorney "Hal" Hallihan's patent invalidity arguments

Chicago (PRWEB) February 5, 2010

The U. S. Court of Appeals officially entered a judgment into the record affirming a summary judgment ruling from the Eastern District of Texas.

In Iovate Health Sciences Inc. et al v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition Inc. (Case Number 9:07-cv-0046-RC), Iovate, the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. (UF), and Flamma SpA filed a complaint against Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition (BSN) and Medical Research Institute (MRI) in Texas for patent infringement (http://www. hallihan. com/Chicago_Patent_Attorneys. html) in 2007.

Iovate is the exclusive licensee of UF's patented method for "enhancing muscle performance or recovery from fatigue" (Pat. No. 6,100,287). The method includes the single step of administering a composition that contains a ketoacid and either a cationic or dibasic amino acid.

BSN was defended by a Chicago-based law firm whose team was led by experienced patent attorney William J. "Hal" Hallihan (http://www. hallihan. com/Our_IP_Team. html). Hallihan sought to invalidate Iovate's patent claims with an innovative argument for summary judgment and was ultimately successful when Judge Ron Clark ruled, prior to trial, that numerous patent claims were anticipated under 35 USC 102(b).

"The most relevant prior art were advertisements found in bodybuilding magazines," explained Hallihan. "Each ad mentioned specific ingredients, administering the supplement, and marketing claims and testimonials from bodybuilders extolling the virtues of the product. We successfully argued that the advertising disclosed all limitations of the invalidated claims, including the chemical components, as well as the function of administration to enhance muscle performance."

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the summary judgment ruling in a November decision. That decision was entered into the record in January 2010.

The case comes on the heels of a similar dispute having similar results. In Medical Research Institute (MRI) v. Bio-Engineered Supplements and Nutrition Inc (BSN) et al (Case Number: 6:05-cv-00417-LED), MRI sued BSN in 2005 for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas. In this case, Hallihan successfully argued that MRI's use of the term "comprising" in its claims fell within an exception to the general rule that such term means the claim is open-ended. In 2007, Judge Leonard Davis ruled in favor of BSN and taxed BSN's costs against MRI.

Last year, Hallihan founded, Hallihan IP Partners. Hallihan's concept in forming the boutique law firm was to assemble a team of highly experienced professionals (http://www. hallihan. com/Home_Page. html) without the typical overhead and business practices of larger IP law firms.

The firm's IP specialists have counseled clients (http://www. hallihan. com/Representative_Cases. html) worldwide on patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, computer law, Internet issues and matters before the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, various courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC).

For more information about Hallihan IP Partners, please go to http://www. hallihan. com (http://www. hallihan. com) or call 312.784.3000

# # #