FedCircuitBlog

On Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a case we have been tracking because it attracted three amicus briefs. Judge Newman authored the majority opinion, which Judge Moore joined. Judges Newman and Moore vacated a district court’s judgment as a matter of law and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate a jury verdict of induced infringement in favor of GlaxoSMithKline based on indications of use in labels applied by Teva, a generic drug manufacturer. Chief Judge Prost filed a thirty-three page dissenting opinion, taking the majority to task for “creating infringement liability for any generic entering the market with a [so-called] skinny label, and by permitting infringement liability for a broader label that itself did not actually cause any direct infringement.” Here is a summary of the majority and dissenting opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case. Here is the introduction of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a first patent case and a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

The Federal Circuit did not publish any new opinions or orders this morning.

On Monday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, a panel of the court composed of Judges Newman, Linn, and Hughes unanimously reversed the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict finding that the patent-in-suit was invalid as anticipated. Here is a summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order declining to permit interlocutory review of an order by the Court of Federal Claims denying a motion to dismiss. Here is the text from the Federal Circuit’s order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in a patent case and a veterans case. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus that would have directed a district court to stay proceedings. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, a panel of the court composed of Judges Prost, Newman, and Bryson unanimously affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part a district court’s construction of claim terms. The court also vacated the district court’s granting of JMOL based on estoppel due to a previous inter partes review proceeding. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment that the asserted claims were not improperly broadened. Based on its holdings, the court remanded the case back to the district court. Here is a summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential opinion in a case concerning false advertising and the Lanham Act. Here are the introductions to the opinions.