Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc.

Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

*

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

Nos. 07-2615, 07-2616MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY,Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,v.QLT PHOTOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.,Defendant.QLT, INC.,Counterclaim Plaintiff, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,v.MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY;EVANGELOS S. GRAGOUDAS, M.D.; JOAN W. MILLER, M.D.,Counterclaim Defendants, Appellees/Cross-Appellants. APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]BeforeHoward, Baldock and Selya, Circuit Judges.

*

Richard G. Taranto, with whom Farr & Taranto, Donald R. Ware,

Sarah Cooleybeck, Jeff Bone, Foley Hoag LLP, Aaron M. Panner,Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC, were on brieffor appellant/cross-appellees.Kenneth B. Herman, with whom James F. Haley, Jr., ChristopherJ. Harnett, Karen Mangasarian, John D. Donovan, Jr., F. TurnerBuford and Ropes & Gray, LLP, were on brief for appellee/cross-appellant.January 12, 2009

-3-

HOWARD, Circuit Judge

. These appeals require us tograpple with the metes and bounds of Massachusetts unjustenrichment and restitution law. Like many such cases, the presentcase involves one party's conferral of a valuable benefit duringongoing contract negotiations, followed by an irreparable breach inthe bargaining process. What makes this case unusual is that itssubject matter -- the development of a blockbuster pharmaceutical-- poses challenges in valuing the benefit conferred, andpotentially implicates federal patent law. Defendant QLTPhototherapeutics, Inc. ("QLT") appeals a jury finding that it wasunjustly enriched because plaintiff Massachusetts Eye and EarInfirmary ("MEEI") conferred on QLT several benefits during thecourse of the development of Visudyne, a successful (and highlyprofitable) treatment for age-related macular degeneration (“AMD”),a leading cause of adult blindness.In a prior opinion, we concluded that MEEI was entitledto a trial on two theories supporting its unjust enrichment claim,as well as a misappropriation of trade secrets claim and claimsarising under the Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices statute,Mass. General Laws ch. 93A §§ 2, 11 (“Chapter 93A”). Mass. Eye &Ear Infirm. v. QLT Phototh., Inc., 412 F.3d 215 (1st Cir.2005)("MEEI-II"). After trial, a jury found that QLT was unjustlyenriched, and that it had committed unfair trade practices inviolation of Chapter 93A. The jury awarded MEEI a running royalty

Category:	Business/Law
Rating:
Upload Date:	02/11/2009
Copyright:	Attribution Non-commercial
Tags:	Patents Patents (fewer)

Documents

People