This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California; the nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of of a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. Here are introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Ascendis Pharma A/S v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (Precedential)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a)(2), a respondent in a proceeding before the United States International Trade Commission may seek to stay a district court action involving the same parties and same issues if the request is made within certain specified time limits. A stay under § 1659(a)(2) is mandatory and cannot be lifted until the Commission’s determination becomes final. This appeal asks whether a respondent in an ITC proceeding may seek a mandatory stay of its refiled declaratory judgment action involving the same parties even though it had previously filed a declaratory judgment action and missed the deadline for seeking a stay under § 1659(a)(2). We hold that it may not.
Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Peter Henrik Pedersen appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in inter partes review No. IPR2023-00029, holding claims 1 and 14-17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 unpatentable as obvious. Because we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.