Today the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions, a nonprecedential opinion, two summary affirmances, and a dismissal. Two of the precedential opinions comes in related patent cases. In the first opinion, the court dismisses an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board because the appellant did not have standing. Notably, Judge Hughes filed a concurring opinion. In the second opinion, the court reversed an order by the District of New Jersey granting a preliminary injunction. In the third precedential opinion the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the District of Delaware in a patent case. In the fourth precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissal.
Incyte Corp. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (Precedential)
Incyte Corporation (Incyte) appeals a post-grant review (PGR) final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) holding Incyte failed to prove claims 1–7 and 9–21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,561,659 were unpatentable. Because Incyte fails to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal, we dismiss.
Hughes, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I join my colleagues in holding that Incyte lacks Article III standing to bring this appeal before us because that is the result compelled by our precedent. I wrote a concurrence in General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp. because “I believe that precedent has developed an overly rigid and narrow standard for Article III standing in the context of appeals from inter partes review proceedings.” 928 F.3d 1349, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Hughes, J., concurring). I write separately in this case because I continue to hold that belief in the context of appeals from administrative post-grant proceedings generally, and the facts of this case present a circumstance in which I believe our precedent dictates an outcome inconsistent with the spirit of Article III standing. Our precedent on whether parties have standing to appeal to this court from an adverse administrative post-grant review is too restrictive and creates a special standing rule for patent cases. The existence of this narrower special rule is even more pronounced in the pharmaceutical space, where our precedent leads to the (in my opinion, improper) conclusion of no standing for the inventor of the underlying compound.
Incyte Corp. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (Precedential)
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (collectively, Sun) appeal an order from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granting Incyte Corporation and Incyte Holdings Corporation’s (collectively, Incyte) motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Sun from making, using, selling, advertising, or distributing its drug Leqselvi. On April 9, 2025, we issued an order vacating the injunction with an opinion to follow. For the following reasons, we reverse the district court’s order.
Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC (Precedential)
This is an appeal from the judgment issued by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware pursuant to a jury verdict and the subsequent denial of motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial. Judgment, Ingenico, Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, No. 18- 826-WCB (D. Del. July 25, 2022), ECF No. 506. IOENGINE appeals a jury verdict that found claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,059,969 and claims 56, 90, 101, 105, and 124 of U.S. Patent No. 9,774,703 invalid as anticipated and rendered obvious by the prior art. In the alternative, IOENGINE appeals the district court’s jury instructions and decision to allow Ingenico to introduce prior art at trial. Because substantial evidence supports the jury verdict, and because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial, we affirm.
In re Foster (Precedential)
Thomas D. Foster, APC (Foster) appeals a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decision affirming the examining attorney’s refusal to register the mark US SPACE FORCE pursuant to § 2(a) of the Lanham Act based on false suggestion of a connection with the United States. We affirm.
Alshara v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Mutaz Al Shara appeals from the final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under RCFC 12(b)(6). Al Shara v. United States, Case No. 23-1848C (Fed. Cl. May 7, 2024). We have jurisdiction over Mr. Al Shara’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We review the Claims Court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction without deference. Diaz v. United States, 853 F.3d 1355, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We also review the Claims Court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted without deference. B.H. Aircraft Co. Inc. v. United States, 89 F.4th 1360, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2024). For the reasons stated below, we affirm the final decision of the Claims Court.