This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the District of Delaware. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the other comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (Precedential)
This appeal arises from a suit under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Azurity”) brought suit against Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (“Alkem”) for infringement of claims 5, 7, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,959,948 (“the ’948 patent”) following Alkem’s submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”). After a two-day bench trial, the court found that Alkem’s ANDA did not infringe any of the asserted claims of the ’948 patent. Azurity Pharms., Inc. v. Alkem Lab’ys, Ltd., 671 F. Supp. 3d 489 (D. Del. 2023). Because the district court correctly found that Azurity disclaimed any presence of propylene glycol in the prosecution history of the ’948 patent, Alkem’s ANDA product contains propylene glycol, and a stipulation entered by the parties during discovery does not preclude Alkem’s disclaimer argument, we affirm.
In re Li (Nonprecedential)
Li Li and Qunzhu Li (hereafter “applicants”) filed U.S. Patent Application No. 13/576,565 on August 1, 2012. The ’565 application relates to fluid catalytic cracking, a process in which hydrocarbon materials react with a catalyst to form oil and gas products that are then separated from the catalyst. The assigned patent examiner in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) rejected all pending claims of the application for obviousness. Applicants appealed to the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), which affirmed the rejection of the claims. Ex parte Li, No. 2023-000079, 2023 WL 3560449, at *1 (P.T.A.B. May 18, 2023) (Decision). Applicants appeal the Board decision to this court. We now affirm.
Randall v. Department of the Air Force (Nonprecedential)
Ronald R. Randall petitions pro se for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming his termination from the Department of the Air Force. See Randall v. Dep’t of the Air Force, No. CH-0752-18-0484-I-1, 2024 WL 3887264 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 20, 2024). We affirm.