This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Coleman v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Lynn E. Coleman, the widow of veteran Edward C. Brass, appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision denying her request for dependency and indemnity compensation benefits. See Coleman v. Wilkie, No. 19-0312, 2020 WL 1237406 (Vet. App. Mar. 16, 2020). Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss.
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
The plaintiffs (collectively, Par) own and have exclusive rights to U.S. Patent Nos. 9,119,876 and 9,295,657, which claim particular compositions containing epinephrine, the active ingredient in Par’s Adrenalin® products, as well as methods of administering such compositions to patients. In 2017, Hospira, Inc. filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the Food and Drug Administration, seeking permission to manufacture and market a generic version of Par’s Adrenalin® epinephrine injection, 1 mg/mL, product. Par sued Hospira for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e), alleging that the ANDA was for a product, and use of a product, claimed in the ’876 and ’657 patents. As relevant on appeal, Hospira responded by disputing infringement on the ground that its ANDA product would not meet several limitations of the asserted claims. After a bench trial, the district court ruled for Par and against Hospira, finding that Hospira’s ANDA was for a product that meets the disputed claim limitations. Par Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 420 F. Supp. 3d 256 (D. Del.2019) (Par). Hospira appeals the infringement determination. We affirm.