This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case and another in a government contract case. In the patent case, the Federal Circuit concluded that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a patent owner from presenting an infringement theory at trial. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders, one dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction and another granting a motion to dismiss. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and a link to the order granting the motion to dismiss.

Astellas US LLC v. Hospira, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

Gilead Sciences, Inc., Astellas US LLC, and Astellas Pharma US, Inc. (together, “Astellas”) sued Hospira, Inc., alleging that Hospira’s abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) infringed three patents that cover Form A regadenoson (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,106,183; RE47,301; and 8,524,883), a monohydrate (hydrate that contains one molecule of water in the crystal lattice for every molecule of the compound) form of regadenoson that can be used to increase blood flow to mimic a cardiac stress test. Astellas’s theory was not that Hospira intentionally created Form A regadenoson, but that this occurred inadvertently in the production process for an intermediate product made by a third party and incorporated by Hospira into its final product. Before trial, Hospira amended its ANDA, allegedly making it more difficult for Astellas to prove its original infringement theory. Astellas then sought to present a new and previously unasserted infringement theory (that Hospira’s own process created Form A regadenoson).

The district court found this new theory to be untimely and granted Hospira’s motion to strike the new infringement contentions and the related expert evidence. The trial went forward on Astellas’s original infringement theory, updated with supplemental evidence, and the district court found that Hospira did not infringe. Astellas appeals only the district court’s exclusion of the new theory. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the new infringement theory, and we affirm.

E&I Global Energy Services, Inc. v. United States (Nonprecedential)

E&I Global Energy Services, Inc. (“E&I”) appeals three orders of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) rejecting E&I’s claims under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. We affirm the Claims Court’s decisions except that we hold that the court erred in dismissing E&I’s claim that the government improperly terminated the contract for default because the actions of other government contractors (here the sureties described below) caused the delay. On that count, we reverse and remand.

Collier v. President of Stanford (Nonprecedential Order)

The court dismisses Irina Collier’s appeal and related request for a writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.