This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and four nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The nonprecedential opinions come in two pro se cases, one of which is a patent case. Of the nonprecedential orders, one summarily affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a complaint; one transfer a case; and two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Torrent Pharma Inc. (Precedential)
Following a three-day bench trial, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware determined that claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent 8,101,659 (“the ’659 patent”) were not shown to be invalid for obviousness, lack of enablement, or indefiniteness, but were shown to be invalid for lack of written description. In re Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan) Pat. Litig., No. 20-md-2930, 2023 WL 4405464, at *13, *21, *22 (D. Del. July 7, 2023) (“Decision”). Judgment was entered on those grounds. Appellant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Novartis”) challenges the district court’s written description determination. Appellees MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc., MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., and MSN Life Sciences Private Ltd. (collectively, “MSN”) argue that the judgment of invalidity should be affirmed, either by affirming the district court’s written description determination or, alternatively, by reversing the district court’s obviousness or enablement determinations.
For the following reasons, we reverse the district court’s determination that the claims lack an adequate written description, and we affirm its determinations that the claims were not shown to be invalid as either non-enabled or obvious.
In re Mazed (Nonprecedential)
Mohammad A. Mazed appeals from the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) affirming the Examiner’s rejections of claims 85 and 87 of U.S. Patent Application 16/602,403 (“the ’403 application”) for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Mazed, No. 2024-000723, 2024 WL 3200453 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2024) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Ybarra v. Department of Justice (Nonprecedential)
The U.S. Department of Justice employed Jose Ybarra as a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) until charging him with unprofessional off-duty conduct and removing him from employment. After unsuccessfully appealing his removal to the FBI’s Disciplinary Review Board, Mr. Ybarra appealed his removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board). The Board’s assigned administrative judge rejected his challenges to the agency’s removal decision, Ybarra v. Department of Justice, No. CH-0752-17-0422-I-2, 2018 WL 2463376 (M.S.P.B. May 30, 2018) (Initial Decision), and the full Board agreed, adopting the Initial Decision as the Board’s final decision, supplemented by one more finding of fact supporting the result, Ybarra v. Department of Justice, No. CH-0752-17-0422-I-2, 2024 WL 1231943, at *1 (¶ 1), *7 (¶ 21) (M.S.P.B. Mar. 21, 2024) (Final Order). Mr. Ybarra now appeals his removal to us. We affirm.