Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. One of the opinions comes in a patent case appealed from a district court, while the other comes in an taking case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions along with links to the dismissals.
Rex Medical, L.P., v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (Precedential)
Rex Medical, L.P. (“Rex”) sued Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., and Intuitive Surgical Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Intuitive”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for patent infringement. Days before a jury trial began, the district court precluded Rex’s damages expert from testifying about a specific license agreement for failure to apportion. At trial, neither party’s damages expert testified. The jury found that Intuitive infringed claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,439,650, which it found was not invalid, and awarded Rex $10 million. After trial and post-trial motions, the district court entered a final judgment that: (1) Intuitive directly infringed claim 6 of the ’650 patent; (2) claim 6 of the ’650 patent is not invalid for lack of written description; and (3) awarded nominal damages in the amount of $1 for Intuitive’s infringement.
Rex appeals the district court’s (1) exclusion of its damages expert’s testimony and methods relying on the aforementioned license, and (2) reduction of the jury’s damages award from $10 million to $1 nominal damages. Intuitive cross-appeals with respect to infringement and invalidity. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Electrical Welfare Trust Fund v. United States (Precedential)
Plaintiffs-Appellants brought this action against the United States seeking, among other things, compensation for an alleged Fifth Amendment taking based on mandatory contributions they paid to the Transitional Reinsurance Program as part of the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted the Government’s motion for partial summary judgment on the Fifth Amendment takings claim. For the following reasons, we affirm.