The case involved a patent dispute between AstraZeneca, which held patents on methods and kits for administering the asthma drug budesonide, and Apotex, which sought to market a generic version through an FDA abbreviated new drug application. AstraZeneca obtained a preliminary injunction preventing Apotex from launching its product, while the district court invalidated the kit claims in the patents. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the injunction grant, finding no abuse of discretion, and upheld the invalidity ruling on the kit claims as not clearly erroneous. The decision centered on the proper construction of patent terms, prior art anticipation, and compliance with FDA labeling and certification requirements for generics.
Teva Pharmaceuticals, a generic drug manufacturer, filed a declaratory judgment action against Eisai seeking a ruling that its proposed generic version of donepezil did not infringe four of Eisai's Orange Book patents for the brand-name Alzheimer's drug Aricept. As a subsequent Paragraph IV filer under the Hatch-Waxman Act, Teva's FDA approval was blocked by the 180-day exclusivity period of the first filer, Ranbaxy, which had not yet been triggered. The district court dismissed the case for lack of Article III jurisdiction, concluding there was no justiciable controversy. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that Teva alleged a concrete injury-in-fact from the delayed approval that was traceable to Eisai's patents and redressable by a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, which would trigger the exclusivity period, and found no basis to decline jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
The case involved Princo's challenge to U.S. Philips Corporation's enforcement of patents covering CD-R and CD-RW technology standards set forth in the Orange Book, which Philips and Sony jointly developed. Princo argued that Philips committed patent misuse by agreeing with Sony not to license an alternative Lagadec patent that could have competed with the Orange Book standards. The Federal Circuit upheld the International Trade Commission's ruling that no patent misuse occurred and that Philips could enforce its patents. The court reasoned that the patent misuse doctrine is narrow and judge-made, applies only when a patentee imposes conditions exceeding the scope of the patent right, and should not be expanded to cover agreements that do not demonstrably suppress viable competing technologies.
This case involved a patent infringement dispute over U.S. Patent No. 6,655,566, which claims an improved 'bundle breaker' machine for separating stacks of corrugated board using 'compliance structures' to handle logs of varying heights. After a trial ended in a hung jury, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law that the patent claims would have been obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the invention was obvious in light of prior art machines such as the Pallmac and Visy systems, which addressed similar compliance issues, combined with the ordinary skill of a mechanical engineer. The court also noted that near-simultaneous invention of a comparable Tecasa machine further supported the obviousness determination by showing the level of skill in the art.
This case concerned the scope of the counterclaim provision in 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(C)(ii) of the Hatch-Waxman Act, which allows generic drug manufacturers to challenge brand-name companies' patent listings in the FDA's Orange Book. The underlying dispute involved Novo Nordisk's listing of a patent covering combination therapy for the diabetes drug repaglinide and whether Caraco could force correction of that listing to enable a carve-out for its generic product. A Federal Circuit panel ruled that the counterclaim was unavailable because the listed patent information was not inaccurate on its face. The full court denied Caraco's petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc after a poll of the active judges failed.
This case involved Avid Identification Systems' petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc after a prior Federal Circuit decision held its patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct during prosecution, despite a jury finding the patent valid and willfully infringed. Avid also moved to join or stay the mandate pending the en banc decision in Therasense v. Becton Dickinson, which addresses standards for materiality and intent in inequitable conduct claims. The court denied the motion to stay or join, denied both the panel rehearing and en banc rehearing petitions after a failed poll of active judges, and directed that the mandate issue on July 23, 2010. The core reasoning was that the en banc poll did not succeed and no basis existed to delay finality in light of the separate Therasense proceeding. Judge Newman dissented, arguing that a stay was warranted due to potential changes in inequitable conduct law that could affect the outcome.
The case concerned Giacomini's appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, which rejected claims in U.S. Patent Application No. 09/725,737 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by the Tran patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision. The Tran patent, filed after Giacomini's application, claimed priority to a provisional application filed before it, and the court held that this earlier U.S. provisional filing date made the Tran patent effective prior art. Giacomini's claims described a cache population method based on multiple data requests, which the Tran patent was found to disclose. The court reasoned that section 102(e) treats the disclosure in a U.S. patent as prior art from the earliest U.S. filing date to which it is entitled.
This case involved Telcordia Technologies suing Cisco Systems for infringement of three patents related to data transmission techniques in telecommunications networks. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement on one patent, but a jury found willful infringement on the other two, upheld the validity of all patents, and awarded damages along with prejudgment interest and an accounting. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the infringement findings, validity of two patents, and the damages award, but vacated the validity determination on the third patent due to an erroneous claim construction and remanded for further proceedings, while also remanding for royalty negotiations. The court reasoned that the district court's claim construction error affected the invalidity analysis for one patent, but found no errors in the other aspects of the trial court's rulings.
This case involved a petition by Zimmer Holdings for a writ of mandamus seeking to transfer a patent infringement lawsuit filed by MedIdea, LLC, from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of Indiana. The Federal Circuit granted the petition and ordered the transfer. The court reasoned that the convenience of parties and witnesses and access to evidence strongly favored Indiana, where Zimmer is based and most witnesses and documents are located, while MedIdea's connection to Texas amounted to little more than a legal fiction with no substantial business activity. The court further concluded that an ongoing but largely unrelated patent suit by MedIdea in Texas did not justify retaining the case there due to differences in the products, patents, and parties involved.
This case concerned whether petroleum wax candles containing 50% or more vegetable wax, known as mixed-wax candles, qualified as later-developed merchandise covered by a 1986 antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from China. The Court of International Trade had upheld the Department of Commerce's affirmative circumvention determination that such candles fell within the order's scope. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that Commerce's interpretation of the relevant statute was entitled to Chevron deference and that its conclusion rested on substantial evidence, including the order's silence on mixed-wax candles and the ITC's updated domestic like product definition covering candles with any amount of petroleum wax.
The case involved a qui tam action under the false marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, in which plaintiff Matthew Pequignot alleged that Solo Cup Company had marked its disposable cup lids with two expired patent numbers after the patents had lapsed. The district court granted summary judgment to Solo, finding no liability, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. The court held that Solo lacked the required intent to deceive the public because it had consulted outside counsel, adopted a policy of removing the expired markings only when molds were replaced due to wear, and used accurate “may be covered” language on packaging that directed consumers to verify coverage. Because the lack of deceptive intent disposed of the case, the court vacated as moot the district court’s ruling on how many “offenses” had occurred. The appeal arose from the Eastern District of Virginia.
The case involved Thomas Nielson, a veteran seeking VA outpatient dental treatment and related appliances after nearly all his teeth were extracted during military service in Korea in 1952-1953. The court affirmed the denial of benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1712(a)(1)(C), which covers dental conditions due to combat wounds or other service trauma. It held that service trauma requires an injury or wound produced by external physical force, not the intended result of proper medical treatment for a periodontal infection, as confirmed by the Board of Veterans' Appeals findings of no malpractice. The reasoning focused on the statute's plain language, its context alongside combat wounds, and the distinction from psychological events or intended treatment outcomes.
This case involved a patent infringement dispute over U.S. Patent No. 6,650,327, which covers graphics processing systems using floating-point formats for rendering three-dimensional images, as in animated films. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement to ATI based on its claim constructions for terms like 'a rasterization process' and 's10e5,' as well as a Microsoft license that it found authorized end users. A jury separately found that certain claims were not invalid. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the non-infringement ruling for claims 2-6 because the district court had misconstrued two limitations and erred in applying the license to direct infringement, but affirmed the remainder of the judgment, including preclusion of ATI's invalidity counterclaims and denial of costs.
