This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, two nonprecedential opinions in another patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and an employment case, a Rule 36 judgment, and one erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the relevant orders.
Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly and Company (Precedential)
Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH (“Teva”) appeals from a combined final written decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) holding that the claims of U.S. Patents 9,340,614 (“’614 patent”), 9,266,951 (“’951 patent”), and 9,890,210 (“’210 patent”) are unpatentable because they would have been obvious over the cited prior art. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, Nos. IPR2018-01422, IPR2018-01423, IPR2018-01425, 2020 WL 806932 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2020) (“Board Decision”). For the reasons provided below, we affirm.
Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals (Precedential)
Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) appeals from a combined final written decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) holding that the claims of U.S. Patents 8,586,045 (“’045 patent”), 9,884,907 (“’907 patent”), and 9,884,908 (“’908 patent”) are not unpatentable as obvious. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, Nos. IPR2018-01710, IPR2018-01711, IPR2018-01712, 2020 WL 1540364 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2020) (“Board Decision”). For the reasons provided below, we affirm.
Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly and Company (Nonprecedential)
Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH (“Teva”) appeals from a combined final written decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) holding that the claims of U.S. Patents 9,346,881 (“’881 patent”), 9,890,211 (“’211 patent”), and 8,597,649 (“’649 patent”) are unpatentable because they would have been obvious over the cited prior art. Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH, Nos. IPR2018-014242, IPR2018-014264, IPR2018- 01427, 2020 WL 808240 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2020) (“Board Decision”). For the following reasons, and for the reasons set forth in our opinion in Appeal Nos. 2020-1747, 2020-1748, and 2020-1750 issued this day, we affirm.
Goldenberg v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (Nonprecedential)
Petitioner Miranda Goldenberg, as personal representative for Michelle Davidson, seeks review of an arbitrator’s decision sustaining Davidson’s removal from employment as a nurse with the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), arguing that the deciding official violated Davidson’s due process rights by considering new and material information without notice to Davidson. See Federal Bureau of Prisons v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., Local 1612, No. 19114-03260 (Nov. 22, 2019) (Beens, Arb.). Because the record does not establish that the deciding official considered the information as an aggravating factor in determining the penalty, we affirm.