Today the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and a nonprecedential order. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the other precedential opinion comes in another patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, while the other nonprecedential opinions comes in another patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The court issued the nonprecedential order sua sponte to order the appellants to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for violated Federal Circuit Rule 32(b)(1) and a prior order. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.
In re Kostic (Precedential)
Miodrag Kostic and Guy Vandevelde appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board sustaining the examiner’s rejection of claim 3 of Reissue Application No. 16/667,530. Ex parte Kostic, No. 2022-003326, 2022 WL 17223434 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2022) (“Decision”). Because the Board correctly determined that reissue claim 3 is broader than original claim 3, we affirm.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Precedential)
Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Avadel”) appeals from the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware permanently enjoining it from seeking approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“the FDA”) of its product, Lumryz, for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia, as well as from marketing Lumryz for that indication. Jazz Pharms., Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharms. LLC, No. 21-cv-691, 2024 WL 4005200 (D. Del. Aug. 27, 2024) (“Permanent Injunction Order”); see Jazz Pharms., Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharms. LLC, No. 21-cv-691, 2024 WL 4100159 (D. Del. Aug. 27, 2024) (“Decision”). As the district court later clarified in an order denying Avadel’s motion to stay the injunction pending appeal, Avadel is specifically enjoined from: (1) offering open-label extensions to clinical trial participants, (2) applying for FDA approval of Lumryz for idiopathic hypersomnia, and (3) initiating new clinical trials or studies after the Permanent Injunction Order’s effective date. Jazz Pharms., Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharms. LLC, No. 21-cv-691 (D. Del. Sep. 24, 2024) (“Stay Order”), J.A. 38–44.
For the following reasons, we reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
Parenteau v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Edmond G. Parenteau, William H. Davis, Jr., Revette M. Harvey, Marc D. Wishengrad, and Amy Mercury (collectively, “appellants”) filed complaints in the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) seeking injunctive relief prohibiting state enforcement of traffic laws against them, as well as $6,000,000 in damages each. The Claims Court dismissed the complaints for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. Memorandum Opinion and Order at 1, Parenteau v. United States, No. 24-736 (Fed. Cl. June 18, 2024), ECF No. 5 (Opinion). On appeal, we affirm.
Aviation Capital Partners, LLC v. SH Advisors, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Aviation Capital Partners, doing business as Specialized Tax Recovery (“STR”), sued SH Advisors, doing business as Situs Hawk, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,956,988 (“the ’988 patent”). The district court held the asserted claims of the ’988 patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and, as a result, granted Situs Hawk’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Aviation Cap. Partners, LLC v. SH Advisors, LLC, No. 22- 1556, 2023 WL 5333187 (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2023) (“Opinion”). STR appeals. We affirm.
Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co. (Nonprecedential Order)
Kartri Sales Co., Inc. (Kartri) and Marquis Mills International, Inc. (Marquis, collectively, Appellants) filed noncompliant briefs that divided the issues on appeal and attempted to incorporate by reference each other’s briefs. See ECF No. 25 at 30 (Kartri); ECF No. 26 at 26, 43 (Marquis). Kartri’s brief focused on the trademark and trade dress issues, while Marquis’s brief concentrated on the patent claim construction and infringement issues. Appellees objected to Appellants’ briefs as effectively doubling Appellants’ word count and argued it would be inequitable for Appellees to have half the words to address the same issues. ECF No. 33 at 2.