This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion, which attracted two amicus briefs, addresses an appeal from a final judgment of a district court holding certain patent claims invalid as obvious. Judge Cunningham filed an opinion dissenting in part. One of the nonprecedential opinions affirms four final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, determining all claims are unpatentable over asserted prior art. The other nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protections Board. Two of the nonprecedential orders transfer appeals to other United States appellate courts. Four of the nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the transfer orders, and links to the dismissals.
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Precedential Opinion)
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bausch Health Ireland Ltd., and Alfasigma S.P.A. (collectively, “Salix”) appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding claim 2 of U.S. Patent 8,309,569, claim 3 of U.S. Patent 10,765,667, claim 4 of U.S. Patent 7,612,199, and claim 36 of U.S. Patent 7,902,206 invalid as obvious. See Salix Pharms., Ltd. v. Norwich Pharms., Inc., No. 20-cv430, 2022 WL 3225381 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2022) (“Decision”).
Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Norwich”) cross-appeals from an order that issued after the district court concluded that Norwich infringed claim 8 of U.S. Patent 8,624,573, claim 6 of U.S. Patent 9,421,195, and claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent 10,335,397 and had failed to prove that those claims were invalid. That order, contained within the final judgment, instructed the FDA that the effective approval date of Norwich’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) may not precede the expiration dates of those claims. J.A. 51. Norwich also cross-appeals from a denial of its motion to modify the final judgment. See Salix Pharms., Ltd. v. Norwich Pharms., Inc., No. 20-430, 2023 WL 3496373 (D. Del. May 17, 2023) (“Rule 60(b) Order”).
For the following reasons, we affirm.
CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part.
I join most of the majority’s opinion, but I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 8,309,569 and 10,765,667 (the “IBS-D patents”). I would vacate the district court’s judgment that the asserted claims of the IBS-D patents are obvious and remand for further proceedings.
Gui Global Products, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Nonprecedential Opinion)
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,259,020 (“the ’020 patent”), 10,259,021 (“the ’021 patent”), 10,562,077 (“the ’077 patent”), and 10,589,320 (“the ’320 patent”). In four final written decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determined that all claims were unpatentable over the asserted prior art. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. GUI Glob. Prods., Ltd., No. IPR202100335, 2022 Pat. App. LEXIS 3359 (P.T.A.B. June 29, 2022) (“’335 Decision”); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. GUI Glob. Prods., Ltd., No. IPR2021-00336, 2022 WL 2252459 (P.T.A.B. June 22, 2022) (“’336 Decision”); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. GUI Glob. Prods., Ltd., No. IPR2021-00337, 2022 WL 2252561 (P.T.A.B. June 22, 2022) (“’337 Decision”); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. GUI Glob. Prods., Ltd., No. IPR202100338, 2022 WL 2252461 (P.T.A.B. June 22, 2022) (“’338 Decision”). GUI Global Products, Ltd. d/b/a Gwee (“Gwee”) appeals each final written decision. We affirm.
Haynes v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential Opinion)
Nichelle Haynes appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) that affirmed a decision by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) denying her application for disability retirement under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Mascorro v. City of San Diego (Nonprecedential Order)
Eloy Mascorro appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California’s dismissal of his civil rights action against the listed defendants. In response to the court’s March 14, 2024 order to show cause, Mr. Mascorro urges transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
* * *
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The appeal and all its filings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
United States v. Dubose (Nonprecedential Order)
On March 13, 2023, the court received a notice of appeal signed by Kariem Baseer DuBose, appealing the district court’s judgment in the underlying criminal case, ECF No. 1-2 at 1, though the notice of appeal was mailed by Zumar DuBose, another defendant in the case. Id. at 2.
This is a court of limited jurisdiction, which does not include jurisdiction over criminal cases. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295. The appropriate court for this appeal is the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.