This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Of the precedential opinions, one of the cases was a patent case appealed from a district court and the other was a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Both of the nonprecedential opinions come in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc. (Precedential)
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., brought two suits against Moderna, Inc., ModernaTX, Inc., and Moderna US, Inc. (collectively Moderna) in district court, alleging that Moderna’s activities involving its mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine SPIKEVAX® infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 11,246,933 (parent) and 11,382,979 (child), issued to Alnylam as both applicant and assignee. Specifically, Alnylam alleged that Moderna’s vaccine contains a cationic lipid, SM-102, that is claimed by the asserted patents. The appeal here turns on a single issue of claim construction.
The district court concluded that Alnylam had acted as lexicographer regarding the claim term “branched alkyl” in the following portion of the specification:
Unless otherwise specified, the term[] “branched alkyl” . . . refer[s] to an alkyl . . . group in which one carbon atom in the group (1) is bound to at least three other carbon atoms and (2) is not a ring atom of a cyclic group.
’933 patent, col. 412, lines 13–17; ’979 patent, col. 380, lines 31–35; Transcript at 144:7–147:8, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., No. 22-cv-335-CFC (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2023), ECF No. 115 (Aug. 10, 2023) (Transcript). The district court treated that passage as a definition furnishing the governing construction of a “branched alkyl” and two related claim terms. Claim Construction Order at 12, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., No. 22cv-335-CFC (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2023), ECF No. 125 (Order); see Transcript, at 144:7–147:8. The parties stipulated that Moderna did not infringe the asserted patent claims under that claim construction, because Moderna’s product does not meet the “branched alkyl” requirement of a carbon atom bound to at least three other carbons, and the district court entered final judgment accordingly. J.A. 5665–71; J.A. 1–2.
Alnylam appeals. We conclude that Alnylam acted as lexicographer in its requirement of a carbon bound to at least three other carbons “[u]nless otherwise specified” and that Alnylam did not otherwise specify for purposes of the asserted claims. We therefore affirm.
Bannister v. United States (Precedential)
Trese Bannister, the surviving spouse of General Jeffrey Bannister, appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims denying her request for a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity. Because Mrs. Bannister is the proper beneficiary of the SBP annuity under the governing statute, we reverse the denial and remand for a determination of the annuity benefits due to Mrs. Bannister.
Butler v. Department of the Army (Nonprecedential)
Timothy W. Butler petitions pro se for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his petition for enforcement of the Board’s order granting him back pay. We affirm.
Marcum v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
William D. Marcum petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) order affirming a November 24, 2021 Initial Decision that dismissed Mr. Marcum’s appeal alleging involuntary resignation for lack of jurisdiction. Marcum v. DOJ, No. DE-0752-21-0188-I-1, 2023 WL 4875199 (M.S.P.B. July 31, 2023). For the following reasons, we affirm.