This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and one comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the summary affirmances.
Wyeth LLC v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (Precedential)
Wyeth appeals from a final decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of invalidity of asserted claims 1, 3, and 9 of U.S. Patent 10,603,314 (“the ’314 patent”) and asserted claim 1 of U.S. Patent 10,596,162 (“the ’162 patent”) (together, “the asserted patents”). Wyeth LLC v. Astrazeneca Pharms. LP, No. 21- CV-1338, 2024 WL 3823006 (D. Del. Aug. 14, 2024) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Davis v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Eric Davon Davis, who sued the United States after his passport application was denied, appeals the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. See Davis v. United States, No. 25-1522, 2026 WL 266779, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 2, 2026) (Decision). Because we determine that Mr. Davis’s regulatory takings claim lacks a legally cognizable property interest, we affirm.
In Re Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. (“Magnolia”) appeals from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) in an ex parte reexamination affirming an examiner’s rejection of claim 1 of U.S. Patent 10,039,483 (“the ’483 patent”) as anticipated and therefore unpatentable. Ex Parte Magnolia Med. Techs., Inc., No. 2025-001039, 2025 WL 1528341 (P.T.A.B. May 20, 2025) (“Decision”). We affirm.