Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Nektar Therapeutics

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Nektar Therapeutics

2016 NY Slip Op 6977, 143 A.D.3d 617, 39 N.Y.S.3d 762

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 25, 2016·No. 2040 652823/15·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered February 5, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law without costs, and the motion denied.

Dismissal of the complaint was not warranted in light of the ambiguity in the contract provisions at issue, as they are “susceptible of reasonable interpretations supportive of differing outcomes to the parties’ dispute” (Hambrecht & Quist Guar. Fin., LLC v El Coronado Holdings, LLC, 27 AD3d 204, 204 [1st Dept 2006]). Accordingly, the development of a full factual record as to the parties’ intent is necessary.

Furthermore, contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff’s reasonable interpretation of the agreement would not make it unlawful as an impermissible extension of royalty fees on expired patents (see Kimble v Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 US —, 135 S Ct 2401 [2015]; Brulotte v Thys Co., 379 US 29 [1964]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered February 5, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law without costs, and the motion denied.

Dismissal of the complaint was not warranted in light of the ambiguity in the contract provisions at issue, as they are “susceptible of reasonable interpretations supportive of differing outcomes to the parties’ dispute” (Hambrecht & Quist Guar. Fin., LLC v El Coronado Holdings, LLC, 27 AD3d 204, 204 [1st Dept 2006]). Accordingly, the development of a full factual record as to the parties’ intent is necessary.

Furthermore, contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff’s reasonable interpretation of the agreement would not make it unlawful as an impermissible extension of royalty fees on expired patents (see Kimble v Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 US —, 135 S Ct 2401 [2015]; Brulotte v Thys Co., 379 US 29 [1964]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Nektar Therapeutics, 2016 NY Slip Op 6977, 143 A.D.3d 617, 39 N.Y.S.3d 762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

2016 NY Slip Op 6977 (Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Nektar Therapeutics) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related