By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH, et al. v. Warner Chilcott Co., LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 12-1032-GMS (D.Del., December 9, 2013), the Court denied defendant Warner Chilcott’s motion to dismiss the claim of patent interference under 35 U.S.C. § 291 asserted against Warner Chilcott in the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH and Bayer Pharma AG (collectively, “Bayer”).  Bayer’s First Amended Complaint asserted claims of patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,980,940 (the “‘940 patent”) (Count I) and patent interference between the ‘940 patent and Warner Chilcott’s U.S. Patent No. 7,704,984 (the “‘984 patent”) (Count II).

Warner Chilcott claimed the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the patent interference claim asserting that Bayer’s First Amended Complaint failed to allege the necessary priority dispute required to establish subject matter jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 291. Id. at 4. The court disagreed with Warner Chilcott, found that Bayer sufficiently pled the necessary requirements for an interference claim, and concluded the court therefore had subject matter jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 291.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.