This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, six nonprecedential opinions, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of West Virginia. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a case involving patent issues appealed from the Northern District of California, one comes in a case dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction, two come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one comes in a case decided by the Merit System Protection Board, and, finally, one comes in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the summary affirmances.
Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Precedential)
Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8,318,802 and 8,598,227, which describe certain pharmaceutical compositions involving epoprostenol. Epoprostenol is the active ingredient in Actelion’s hypertension drug Veletri®. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. submitted an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking approval to market a generic epoprostenol drug before the expiration of Actelion’s patents. Actelion sued Mylan for patent infringement in the Northern District of West Virginia under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) and 21 U.S.C. § 355(j), alleging that Mylan’s proposed generic drug was covered (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) by certain claims of the ’802 and ’227 patents. The district court found no literal infringement, concluding, as most relevant here, that the claim term “a pH of 13 or higher” refers to a pH measured at a temperature standard in the field. The district court further ruled that Actelion was barred from asserting, and had not proved, infringement by an equivalent. Actelion appeals. We now affirm.
Seoul Semiconductor Co. v. Finelite, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Finelite, Inc. (“Finelite”) appeals from a final decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissing its breach of contract, breach of warranty, and declaratory judgment claims against Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (“Samsung”). See Seoul Semiconductor Co. v. Finelite, Inc., 694 F. Supp. 3d 1199 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Smith v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Janeen D. Smith, doing business as Brandt Development, appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
Hooper v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Seth A. Hooper appeals a final decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his motion to recall the mandate issued on February 15, 2022, in connection with an earlier case brought by Mr. Hooper. See Hooper v. McDonough, 2021 WL 5367885 (Vet. App. Nov. 18, 2021) (“Hooper 2021”). Mr. Hooper’s theory is that, in later decisions, both the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) and the Veterans Court concluded that a January 2008 rating decision was final in contravention of the Veterans Court’s supposed conclusion in Hooper 2021 that the 2008 rating decision was not final. The Veterans Court denied Mr. Hooper’s motion based on its determination that Hooper 2021 did not decide that the 2008 rating decision was nonfinal. Because the Veterans Court did not err in its interpretation of Hooper 2021, we affirm.
Collins v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Dolphus Collins, a veteran, appeals from an order of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus.
* * *
Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal and are required to dismiss it.
Jones v. Department of the Army (Nonprecedential)
Anthony Jones petitions for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (the “Board”) denying additional damages for his improper removal. We affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Roku, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Universal Electronics, Inc. appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board determining that claims 1–6, 12, and 15–18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,847,083 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of prior art asserted in an inter partes review petition filed by Roku, Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). On appeal, UEI challenges the Board’s determination that the challenged claims of the ’083 patent would have been obvious based on the construction of the term “the provisioned codeset record comprising protocol and formatting information.” For the following reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision.