Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one precedential order in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a Vaccine Act case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc. (Precedential)

Appellees Allergan Sales, LLC and Allergan, Inc. (together, “Allergan”) sued Appellants Sandoz, Inc. and Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (together, “Sandoz”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (“District Court”), asserting that Sandoz’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) No. 91-087 for a generic version of Allergan’s ophthalmic drug Combigan® infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 9,770,453 (“the ’453 patent”), 9,907,801 (“the ’801 patent”), and 9,907,802 (“the ’802 patent”) (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”) owned by Allergan. The District Court found limiting a number of “wherein” clauses in the Patents-in-Suit, Allergan Sales LLC v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 2:17- cv-10129, 2018 WL 3675235, at *7 (D.N.J. July 13, 2018) (Opinion) (J.A. 5–25), and granted Allergan’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-10129 (D.N.J. July 13, 2018) (Order) (J.A. 1–4).

BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therpeutics, Inc.(Precedential Order)

Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. moves to dismiss these appeals on the basis that our review is barred by 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. opposes the motion. Having considered the parties’ arguments, we grant the motion and dismiss these appeals.

The Scripps Research Institute v. Illumina, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

The Scripps Research Institute owns now-expired U.S. Patent No. 6,060,596, which describes and claims bifunctional molecules having certain properties, along with libraries of such molecules. Scripps sued Illumina, Inc. in the Southern District of California, asserting infringement of claims 1, 3, 10, and 16 of the ’596 patent. The district court issued claim-construction rulings that addressed three terms that involve the variable and a claim phrase that refers to a linker molecule. Shortly thereafter, Scripps and Illumina filed a joint motion stipulating that, under the claim-construction rulings, Illumina has not infringed the asserted claims. The district court granted the motion and entered a final judgment in Illumina’s favor.

Scripps appeals the claim-construction rulings involving the terms and the linker molecule phrase. Both parties agree that, if the rulings involving the terms are correct, the district court’s judgment should stand. Because we agree with the district court regarding the a terms, we affirm the judgment without reaching the dispute over the linker molecule phrase.

Gaiter v. HHS (Nonprecedential)

Tiffany S. Gaiter appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing Ms. Gaiter’s claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (“the Vaccine Act”). 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34. The Claims Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Ms. Gaiter’s Notice of Review under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(1)–(2) because it was not timely filed within thirty days of the Special Master’s decision. Because Ms. Gaiter’s claim would be dismissed regardless of whether § 300aa-12(e)(1)–(2) is a jurisdictional prescription, we affirm.