Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System (UT) and TissueGen Inc. sued Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC) for patent infringement in the Western District of Texas. The district court determined that venue was improper and transferred the case to the District of Delaware. UT, acting as an arm of the State of Texas, appeals the district court’s transfer order on several grounds relating to its rights as a sovereign entity.
We hold that, as a threshold matter, we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under the collateral order doctrine. On the merits, we conclude that the state sovereignty principles asserted by UT do not grant it the right to bring suit in an otherwise improper venue. We affirm.
Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.(Nonprecedential)
Phigenix, Inc. sued Genentech, Inc. for induced infringement of various claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,080,534. After striking the infringement opinion of Phigenix’s expert, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement based on a lack of evidence of both direct infringement and intent to induce infringement. The district court also denied summary judgment of invalidity based on various utility, enablement, and written description challenges advanced by Genentech.
Phigenix appeals the order striking its expert report and the grant of summary judgment of noninfringement. Genentech conditionally cross-appeals the denial of summary judgment of invalidity. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm its order striking the infringement opinion of Phigenix’s expert. We further affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement based on a lack of evidence of direct infringement. Because we affirm the district court’s judgment of noninfringement, we do not address Genentech’s conditional cross-appeal.
In Re Orhomuru (Nonprecedential)
Sunday Orhomuru appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s affirmance of a final rejection of his pending patent claims. Because the Board did not err in its interpretation of Mr. Orhomuru’s claims and because substantial evidence supports its determination that those claims are anticipated, we affirm.