This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in a patent case appealed form the District of Delaware. One of the nonprecedential orders comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims that was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the other two orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and the first order as well as links to the dismissals.
Board of Regents of the University of Texas v. Boston Scientific Corp. (Precedential)
The Board of Regents of the University of Texas (UT) owns United States Patent No. 6,596,296. The patent describes and claims a composition (for use, e.g., in an implant) containing a drug-releasing biodegradable polymer fiber—a fiber in which a therapeutic agent is dispersed. In 2017, UT sued Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC), accusing BSC of infringing certain claims of the ’296 patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing BSC’s drug-eluting coronary stent systems.
The district court construed several terms within the asserted claims of UT’s patent. See Board of Regents v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 18-392-GBW, 2022 WL 17039729, at *1 (D. Del. Nov. 17, 2022) (Claim Construction). A jury trial was then held on the asserted claims. The jury found that BSC infringed the asserted claims and did so willfully; rejected BSC’s contention that the claims were invalid for anticipation by a prior-art reference; and awarded damages. The district court subsequently set aside the willfulness finding as legally unsupported but otherwise upheld the verdict and entered judgment accordingly. See Board of Regents v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 18-392-GBW, 2024 WL 2848471 (D. Del. June 5, 2024) (Decision).
BSC appeals from the liability verdict and UT cross-appeals from the district court’s rejection of the jury’s willfulness verdict. We conclude that BSC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law of invalidity for anticipation. We also conclude that BSC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement. We therefore reverse the judgment for UT and do not reach UT’s cross-appeal.
McDermott v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
George McDermott appeals from the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. In response to this court’s show cause order, the United States urges the court to summarily affirm the decision, while Mr. McDermott moves to strike the show cause order and asks the court to allow the appeal to proceed. We summarily affirm.