This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, and one errata. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a judgment in a patent infringement case. Three of the four nonprecedential opinions come in pro se appeals of decisions of the Court of Federal Claims; the fourth comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. One of the three nonprecedential orders is a denial of permission to appeal; another is a denial of petitions for writs of mandamus directed toward the Patent and Trademark Office; the third is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first two orders and links to the dismissal and errata.
Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Co. (Precedential)
Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively, “Teva”) sued Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) for infringing Teva’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,586,045 (“the ’045 patent”), 9,884,907 (“the ’907 patent”), and 9,884,908 (“the ’908 patent”) (collectively, the “headache patents”).
A jury found that Lilly willfully infringed the headache patents and failed to prove their asserted claims invalid. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts then granted judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) that those claims are invalid for failure to satisfy both the written-description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Teva appeals. We reverse and remand.
Lalliss v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Steven J. Lalliss, M.D., appeals from the decision of the Court of Federal Claims, dismissing his claim for backpay and declaratory relief for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Vowels v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Lesley Vowels appeals the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissal of her complaint for failure to prosecute. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Sackey v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Mr. Samuel Sackey sued the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking a whistleblower award under an anti-money laundering statute, 31 U.S.C. § 5323. The Claims Court dismissed Mr. Sackey’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
Hood v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Julian R. Hood Jr., a pro se litigant, appeals from a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Julian Hood Jr. v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. CH-0353-24-0299-I-1, 2025 WL 3241066 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 30, 2025) (Decision) (SAppx 1–17). The Board held that Mr. Hood’s appeal, contending that he should be restored to duty after partially recovering from an injury, was barred by collateral estoppel because the dispositive issues had previously been fully litigated before the Board. The Board further held that Mr. Hood failed to present new evidence that would change the jurisdictional analysis as to his restoration appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
FullView, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), FullView, Inc. seeks permission to appeal orders of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that, inter alia, (1) determined some of the asserted patent claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and (2) excluded FullView’s expert testimony on damages. The district court certified the orders pursuant to § 1292(b).
In re Sansone (Nonprecedential Order)
Stanley A. Sansone petitions for a writ of mandamus related to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) handling of his patent applications: U.S. Patent Application Nos. 16/255,511 and 17/490,525. He also moves to proceed in forma pauperis.