Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal in a patent case. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of New Jersey. The Federal Circuit also released five additional nonprecedential opinions in two patent cases, two veterans cases, and two cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued one Rule 36 judgment, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and one nonprecedential order transferring an appeal. Here are the details.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (Precedential)
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV (collectively, Janssen) sued Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva) in 2018, alleging infringement by Teva of Janssen’s U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906, which describes and claims dosing regimens of long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications. Teva stipulated to infringement but challenged the patent’s validity on several grounds, including that all claims (claims 1–21) were invalid for obviousness and claims 19–21 were also invalid for indefiniteness. The district court, after a bench trial, held that the challenged claims were not shown to be invalid. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 571 F. Supp. 3d 281, 291 (D.N.J. 2021) (Initial Decision). In 2024, on Teva’s appeal, we affirmed the district court’s rejection of Teva’s indefiniteness challenge but vacated the rejection of Teva’s obviousness challenge and remanded for further proceedings on that issue. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 97 F.4th 915, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (Janssen 2024).
On remand, the district court, following a process not challenged here, reconsidered obviousness based on the existing trial record and the parties’ new submissions reflecting our 2024 opinion. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 760 F. Supp. 3d 184, 190 n.4 (D.N.J. 2024) (Remand Decision). The district court held that Teva had not proved any of the asserted claims of the ’906 patent invalid for obviousness. Id. at 190, 224. Teva timely appealed the decision to us. We now affirm.
Ecofactor Inc. v. Google LLC (Nonprecedential)
EcoFactor, Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550, which relates to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Google LLC successfully petitioned for inter partes reviews of the ’550 patent. In the reviews, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the Patent and Trademark Office determined that all challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Ecobee Technologies ULC v. EcoFactor, Inc., IPR202200983, 2023 WL 7493563 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2023) (Decision I); Ecobee Technologies ULC v. EcoFactor, Inc., IPR2022-00969, 2023 WL 7602838 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2023) (Decision II). EcoFactor appealed, and we now affirm.
Ecofactor Inc. v. Google LLC (Nonprecedential)
EcoFactor, Inc. owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8,740,100, 8,751,186, and 9,194,597, which relate to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the Patent and Trademark Office determined that the challenged claims of the patents are unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Google LLC v. EcoFactor, LLC, IPR2022-00475, 2023 WL 5167492 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2023) (’100 Patent Decision); Google LLC v. EcoFactor, LLC, IPR2022-00473, 2023 WL 5153642 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2023) (’186 Patent Decision); Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc., IPR2022-00538, 2023 WL 5166414 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2023) (’597 Patent Decision). EcoFactor appeals, and we now affirm.
El Malik v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Rashid El Malik appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his request for a writ of mandamus ordering the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (“VA”) to comply with an April 7, 2022 Board of Veteran’s Appeals (“Board”) decision. Because we lack jurisdiction to hear portions of this appeal, we dismiss-in-part. On the issue within our jurisdiction, we affirm.
Jones v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Vickie L. Jones appeals pro se a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board denying corrective action in her individual right of action appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Slagle v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)
Gloria Slagle petitions for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) affirming the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) holding that she is ineligible for a survivor annuity benefit based on the federal service of her spouse. We affirm.