Flexsys and Sinorgchem both issued press releases today responding to the CAFC’s decision of Friday, December 21, 2007 regarding the ongoing patent infringement suit alleging that Sinorgchem is violating Flexsys’s patents for 4-ADPA production technology.
Here is the Flexsys release.
Here is the Sinorgchem release — it is in Chinese. I am working to find a translation.
More commentary on the decision is here. Scroll down to December 23 (“Forceful Newman dissent in Sinorgchem vs. ITC”). Read the comments on this post.
Here is our post on the decision.
Below is the main text of the Flexsys press release.
Flexsys To Petition Full Court For Review of Appellate Decision From ITC ActionFlexsys patents remain valid; Exclusion order remains in effect ST. LOUIS – December 27, 2007 — Solutia Inc. today announced that its Flexsys subsidiary will soon be filing a petition for rehearing by all of the judges of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). This matter involves Flexsys’ ongoing patent infringement dispute with Sinorgchem regarding process technology for the manufacture of 4-ADPA and its PPD derivatives. In July 2006, the International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled in favor of Flexsys. Last week, a three-judge panel of the CAFC ruled 2-1 that Sinorgchem had not literally infringed Flexsys’ patents, and remanded the case to the ITC to determine whether Sinorgchem had infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. “We will be moving quickly to file a petition for rehearing,” said Tim Wessel, vice president, Antidegradants and Crystex®. “Importantly, the ITC exclusion order that prohibits Sinorgchem’s importation of 4-ADPA and 6PPD into the United States remains in full effect. We agree with the strongly worded dissent that the ITC decision should be upheld.”
UPDATE: The timeline for the rehearing is difficult to pin down as it is subject to a number of variables. Flexsys has 45 days to file for a rehearing, and the scheduling is then up to the judicial system. A Flexsys spokesperson indicated that they hope to see the case before the full Circuit by 2Q 2008.
Comments