Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, in turn, the court released five nonprecedential opinions, four in patent cases and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released three nonprecedential orders granting summary affirmances under Rule 36 and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.
Cytiva Bioprocess R&D AB v. JSR Corp. (Nonprecedential)
In this consolidated appeal, Cytiva BioProcess R&D AB (“Cytiva”) appeals the final written decisions from six inter partes reviews (“IPRs”), determining that 79 claims of the three challenged patents are unpatentable. JSR Corp. and JSR Life Sciences, LLC (collectively, “JSR”) cross appeal the final written decisions in four of these IPRs, which held the remaining four challenged claims not unpatentable. We affirm the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) determination that claims 1–7, 10–20, 23–26 of the ’765 patent, claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–16, 18–20, 23–30 of the ’142 patent, and claims 1–10, 12–14, 16–28, 30–32, and 34–37 of the ’007 patent are unpatentable (i.e., the 79 claims the Board held are unpatentable), and we reverse the Board’s determination that claims 4 and 17 of the ’142 patent and claims 11 and 29 of the ’007 patent are not unpatentable.
Mirror World Technologies, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC (Mirror Worlds) owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,006,227; 7,865,538; and 8,255,439, which describe and claim methods for storing, organizing, and presenting data in time-ordered streams (i.e., in a chronological manner) on a computer system. In 2017, Mirror Worlds brought the present action in district court against Meta Platforms, Inc.—which was formerly known as Facebook, Inc. and which we call “Facebook” to adhere to the usage of the parties and district court—alleging that Facebook, by providing several features of its social-networking service to its customers, was infringing the ’227, ’538, and ’439 patents. After discovery was completed, Facebook moved for summary judgment of non-infringement of the asserted claims of the patents. The district court granted summary judgment. Although the court rejected Facebook’s defense of invalidity of the asserted claims for ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the court concluded that there was no infringement as a matter of law because, on several grounds, the evidence would not allow a reasonable finding that all claim limitations were satisfied by the accused features of Facebook’s service. Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 588 F. Supp. 3d 526, 539, 550, 555, 557 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (Mirror Worlds 2022).
Mirror Worlds appeals the grant of summary judgment of non-infringement, while Facebook cross-appeals the rejection of the invalidity defense. We agree with the district court’s non-infringement ruling. Given that conclusion, and the fact that the patents at issue expired more than six years ago, we do not, and both parties agree that we need not, address the cross-appeal regarding invalidity.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Novartis”) appeals from the district court’s denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction. Novartis seeks to enjoin MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc., MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., and MSN Life Sciences Private Ltd. (collectively, “MSN”) from launching its generic version of Entresto®, which Novartis alleges would infringe U.S. Patent 11,096,918 (“the ’918 patent”). In re Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan) Pat. Litig., No. 20-md-2930, 2024 WL 3756787 (D. Del. Aug. 12, 2024) (“Preliminary Injunction Order”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Regents of the University of California v. Satco Products, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Appellee Satco Products, Inc. (“Satco”) successfully petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,644,213, owned by Appellant Regents of the University of California (the “Regents”). The Regents appeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Final Written Decision holding claims 1 and 2 unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the reasons that follow, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
Alarid v. Department of the Army (Nonprecedential)
In 2013, the Army removed Douglas A. Alarid from his position as a police officer after finding that he had engaged in misconduct involving a conspiracy to purchase and distribute an unauthorized federal police badge and involving the manufacture and distribution of an unauthorized federal police identification (ID) card. The Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) sustained the removal. Alarid v. Department of the Army, No. SF-0752- 14-0256-B-2, 2023 WL 2482656, at *1 (¶ 1) (M.S.P.B. Mar. 13, 2023) (2023 Board Order), adopting, as Board decision, Alarid v. Department of the Army, No. SF-0752-14-0256-B2, 2016 WL 6837435 (M.S.P.B. Nov. 14, 2016) (Board Decision). Mr. Alarid timely petitioned for review by this court. We affirm
Rule 36 Judgments
- Mypad Holdings Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
- Slayton v. Department of Agriculture
- XMTT, Inc. v. Intel Corp.