This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Blackbird Tech LLC v. Health in Motion LLC (Precedential)
Appellant Blackbird Tech LLC (“Blackbird”) sued Appellees Health In Motion LLC (“HIM”) and Leisure Fitness Equipment LLC (“Leisure”) (together, “Appellees”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,705,976 (“the ’976 patent”) owned by Blackbird. After more than nineteen months of litigation, Blackbird voluntarily dismissed its suit with prejudice and executed a covenant not to sue, after which Appellees were granted attorney fees and expenses in the amount of $363,243.80. Blackbird Tech LLC v. Health In Motion LLC, No. 2:17-cv03488-R-GJS (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2018) (Order) (J.A. 17– 20). Blackbird appeals.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2012). We affirm.
Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (Precedential)
Hospira, Inc. (Hospira) appeals the District of Delaware’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), or alternative motion for new trial, upholding the jury’s verdict that: (1) Amgen, Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing, Ltd.’s (Amgen) U.S. Patent No. 5,856,298 (the ’298 patent) was infringed and not invalid; (2) fourteen batches of drug substance for Hospira’s erythropoietin biosimilar drug product were not covered by the Safe Harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1); and (3) Amgen had proven it was entitled to $70 million in damages. Amgen cross-appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, and alternative motion for new trial, upholding the jury’s verdict of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,756,349 (the ’349 patent). For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s decisions as to each.