Opinions
on

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released one precedential order denying a petition for rehearing en banc in a patent case, four nonprecedential orders dismissing three appeals and a petition, and one nonprecedential order remanding a case to the Court of Federal Claims. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The nonprecedential opinion also comes in a case appealed from the District of Delaware involving breach of contract and tortious interference claims. Today’s order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the en banc order as well as links to the dismissals and remand.

Satius Holding, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. (Precedential)

Satius Holding, LLC (Satius) appeals a final judgment of invalidity of claims 1, 11, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,711,385 entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. We affirm.

Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Co. (Precedential Order)

Eli Lilly and Company filed a petition for rehearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH.

Dyk, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the court’s denial of en banc rehearing. This case presents important questions as to the scope of the enablement requirement for method claims. The panel’s holding creates confusion as to the enablement standards for method claims, will undermine medical innovation by sustaining overly broad claims, and is contrary to Supreme Court enablement precedent.

Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A. (Nonprecedential)

Truinject Corporation (Truinject) was founded not long before the events at issue here to develop a training system for aestheticians to practice dermal injections. The system, which Truinject called “Kate,” was envisioned to include an injectable mannequin head with lifelike skin as well as a syringe with fiber-optic functionality for tracking real-time needle depth, insertion angle, and position for display on a screen. Truinject was interested in exploring business relationships with firms such as those selling dermal injectables, and late in 2014, to explore such possibilities, Truinject entered into a three-month exclusive negotiation agreement with Galderma S.A. (Galderma), as well as a confidentiality agreement, while canceling an imminent meeting with Galderma’s rival, Allergan, the previous employer of Truinject’s principal founder. Ultimately, Truinject did not partner with Galderma or, as relevant here, with Allergan. Truinject sued Galderma and others in 2018, launching a case soon transferred to the District of Delaware. (For simplicity we refer only to Galderma, with no separate mention of the other defendants-appellees.) Besides patent infringement (which is no longer at issue), Truinject alleged tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, breach of contract, and trade secret misappropriation by Galderma.

The district court dismissed the tortious-interference claims on the pleadings. Truinject Corporation v. Galderma S.A., et al., No. 19-cv-592-LPS-JLH, 2020 WL 5095448, at *6–7 (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2020); Truinject v. Galderma S.A., No. 1:19-cv-00592-GBW, 2020 WL 6817088, at *2 (D. Del. Nov. 20, 2020) (adopting the Report and Recommendation). After discovery, the court granted summary judgment for Galderma on various claims and issues. Among the rulings was the court’s grant of summary judgment of no damages: The court concluded that the evidence did not permit a finding that Galderma caused the damages requested by Truinject (for loss of a potential business deal with Allergan). Truinject Corp. v Galderma S.A., 694 F. Supp. 3d 491, 499–502 (D. Del. 2023). The district court also granted Galderma summary judgment of no misappropriation of trade secrets, id. at 502–04, and no breach of either the exclusive-negotiation or confidentiality contract, Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A., et. al., No. 19-592-GBW, 2024 WL 4333115, at *4–6 (D. Del. Sept. 13, 2024). Having also ruled for Galderma on all remaining claims (including patent infringement), the court entered final judgment for Galderma. Truinject appeals. We now affirm.

Dismissals

Remand