This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in a case addressing the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Federal Claims and in a patent case appealed from the District Court for the District of Delaware addressing claim construction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Hartman v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Dorothy M. Hartman appeals from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of her complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Sigmapharm Laboratories (Nonprecedential)
Having reviewed the district court’s thorough and thoughtful opinion, we affirm. We specifically adopt its construction of the following terms from U.S. Patent No. 6,967,208 (“the ’208 patent”): (1) “substituted with [N] R,” see Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc., 477 F. Supp. 3d 306, 340 (D. Del. 2020), and (2) “pharmaceutically acceptable salts,” see id. at 312 ¶ 13. And, we adopt its construction of the following terms from U.S. Patent No. 9,326,945 (“the ’945 patent”): (1) “apixaban particles have a D90 equal to or less than about 89 microns,” see id. at 313 ¶ 19, and (2) “crystalline apixaban particles,” see id. We also find no error, and certainly no clear error, in the district court’s findings of fact, including its expert witness credibility determinations. Because we believe the district court’s patent infringement and invalidity determinations flow directly from its claim construction and factual findings, we affirm.