This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The second comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a writ of mandamus, and a writ of quo warranto. Finally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Horizon Medicines LLC v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (Nonprecedential)

Horizon Medicines LLC (“Horizon”) is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,067,033 (“the ’033 patent”) and 8,067,451 (“the ’451 patent”). In response to Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) No. 211890 submitted by Alkem Laboratories LTD. (“Alkem”), Horizon filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Alkem’s ANDA infringed Horizon’s patents. After a bench trial, the district court found that claims 1, 8, 11, and 14 of the ’033 patent were invalid for obviousness and not infringed, and that claims 1–3 and 8–10 of the ’451 patent were not infringed. We affirm the district court’s findings that the asserted claims of the ’033 patent were invalid for obviousness and that the asserted claims of the ’451 patent were not infringed.

7800 Ricchi LLC v. United States (Nonprecedential)

7800 Ricchi LLC (Ricchi) appeals the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) entry of summary judgment against its claim that the United States Postal Service (USPS) breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in the lease contract between them. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

In re Langham (Nonprecedential Order)

Earl Langham, Jr. has filed a submission at this court seeking a “writ of habeas corpus,” “writ of mandamus,” and “writ of quo warranto,” demanding that Rodney RodellReed be “free and clear of any wrong doing.”

The Federal Circuit is a court of appeals that does not have original or appellate jurisdiction over writs of habeas corpus or criminal matters. See 28 U.S.C § 1295. Because this court does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus, and because issuing a writ of mandamus here would not be in “aid our of [our] jurisdiction[],” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), we dismiss this petition.

Rule 36 Judgments