Appellants seek review of the district court’s summary judgment determination that U.S. Patent No. 7,604,929 (“’929 patent”) is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court concluded that the ’929 patent is directed to a patent-ineligible law of nature—that hepatocytes are capable of surviving multiple freeze-thaw cycles—and that the patented process lacks the requisite inventive concept. Celsis In Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 83 F. Supp. 3d 774 (N.D. Ill. 2015), supplemented, 94 F. Supp. 3d 940 (N.D. Ill.). Because the ’929 patent claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, we vacate and remand.
This appeal involves an action brought by Amgen Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing Limited (collectively Amgen) against Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively Apotex) under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (Biologics Act or BPCIA). Apotex has an application pending with the Food and Drug Administration, filed under the Biologics Act, that seeks permission to begin marketing a product allegedly “biosimilar” to Amgen’s FDA-approved Neulasta®. For such an applicant, the Biologics Act lays out a step-by-step process for exchanging information and channeling litigation about patents relevant to the application. Apotex and Amgen proceeded several steps into that process, leading to the present suit in which Amgen alleges that Apotex’s proposed marketing would infringe an Amgen patent.
This appeal, however, does not involve the merits of the infringement allegations. Rather, it involves Amgen’s motion for a preliminary injunction concerning what will happen if and when the FDA licenses Apotex’s proposed biosimilar product. Amgen sought a preliminary injunction to enforce a provision of the Biologics Act that requires a biosimilar-product applicant to give notice 180 days before commercially marketing its FDA-licensed product, 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(8)(A). We held in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 794 F.3d 1347, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2015), among other things, that the 180-day period runs from post-licensure notice. Here, the district court, agreeing with Amgen, preliminarily enjoined Apotex from entering the market unless it has given Amgen notice after receiving the requested FDA license and then waited 180 days.
We affirm. In Amgen v. Sandoz, we held that the commercial-marketing provision is mandatory, with the 180-day period beginning only upon post-licensure notice, and that an injunction was proper to enforce the provision against Sandoz, a biosimilar-product applicant that had entirely skipped the statutory process of information exchange and patent-litigation channeling. Apotex argues that a different result is required here—that the commercial-marketing provision is not mandatory and may not be enforced by an injunction—because it, unlike Sandoz, did launch the statutory process for exchanging patent information and channeling patent litigation. We reject the asserted distinction. We hold that the commercial-marketing provision is mandatory and enforceable by injunction even for an applicant in Apotex’s position.
Richard Bell sued several defendants for copyright infringement, alleging that they impermissibly displayed a photo belonging to Bell on websites promoting their respective businesses. Bell sought damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief in federal district court. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, first on damages and later on injunctive and declaratory relief. Bell also filed a second copyright infringement lawsuit against some of the defendants in the same court. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the second case based on res judicata. Bell appeals the grant of summary judgment for defendants in the first case and the grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss in the second case. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court in both cases.
Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc. (“Oakville”), doing business as Dalla Valle Vineyards, appeals from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing its opposition to an application filed by Georgallis Holdings, LLC (“Georgallis”) to register a MAYARI mark for use on wine. See Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc. v. Georgallis Holdings, LLC, No. 91211612, 2015 WL 4573202 (T.T.A.B. July 16, 2015) (“Opinion”). Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Oakville’s registered mark MAYA and Georgallis’s applied-for mark MAYARI are sufficiently dissimilar, we affirm.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Siragusa, J.), granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs‐Appellees, companies that own pizza restaurants in Elmira, New York, by the general name of “Pudgie’s,” on their Lanham Act claim seeking cancellation of Defendant‐Appellant Brent Tarntino’s (“Tarntino”) federal trademark registration for the PUDGIE’S mark in connection with pizza restaurants, on the ground that Tarntino obtained the mark by fraud. Because we find no genuine issue of material fact that Tarntino fraudulently procured his mark, we conclude that summary judgment to Plaintiffs‐Appellees was appropriate, and therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court cancelling Tarntino’s mark.
Flo & Eddie, Inc. (“Flo & Eddie”) appeals from a final order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (“Sirius”). We have had the benefit of oral argument and have reviewed the briefs and relevant parts of the record. As the case presents issues that have not been addressed by the Supreme Court of Florida, we believe the issues are appropriate for resolution by Florida’s highest court and defer our decision in this case pending the certification of questions to the Supreme Court of Florida.
This seemingly small case about chile pepper sourcing and document discovery has carried a surprisingly large punch, requiring us to try to fit together in a sensible way an aged statute, many and diverse judicial glosses given to that law, various agency rules — and musings — about the statute, and their interaction with amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have done the best we can to fit these disparate pieces together. In having attempted that much, though, we take care to point out what we haven’t attempted. We haven’t sought to offer any views on the optimal interpretation of § 24 or its interaction (if any) with § 23. The long lingering circuit split that lingers there lingers there still. Neither do we purport to address Mizkan’s many more prosaic objections to the subpoena under Rule 45 itself (objections about the scope of the document requests, etc.). The district court chose not to rely on these grounds in its order quashing the subpoena, and they are the sort of issues it is better equipped to address in the first instance. Today we’ve sought to show no more than that, consistent with any of the various statutory interpretations and regulations cited to us, a party to a TTAB proceeding can obtain nonparty documents without wasting everyone’s time and money with a deposition no one really wants. We trust that this litigation might now turn away from a chase up and down the federal court system over collateral disputes related to the production of documents whose relevance no one before us seriously disputes and advance toward a more informed discussion of the merits consistent with the aspirations of Rule 1. Reversed.
This case involves one necessary condition, under 35 U.S.C. § 120, for treating a patent application, filed as a continuation of an earlier application, as having the earlier application’s filing date, not its own filing date. That timing benefit shrinks the universe of “prior” art for determining validity. The condition at issue, as relevant here, is that the continuation application be “filed before the patenting” of the earlier application. The question is whether, for that condition to be met, the continuing application has to be filed at least one day before the earlier application is patented, or whether an application may be “filed before the patenting” of the earlier application when both legal acts, filing and patenting, occur on the same day.
We adopt the latter position. The statutory language does not compel, though it certainly could support, adoption of a day as the unit of time for deciding if filing is “before” patenting. And history is decisive in permitting the same-day-continuation result, under which, using units of time of less than a day, a “filing” is deemed to occur before “patenting.” The Supreme Court approved same-day continuations in 1863, and the 1952 Patent Act, which introduced section 120, was broadly a codification of existing continuation practices. And same-day continuations have been approved by a consistent, clearly articulated agency practice going back at least half a century, which has plausibly engendered large-scale reliance and which reflects the agency’s procedural authority to define when the legal acts of “filing” and “patenting” will be deemed to occur, relative to each other, during a day.
We reverse the district court’s contrary holding and remand. Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp., No. 1:12-cv- 00259, 2015 WL 627425 (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2015).
Plaintiff Home Design Services, Inc. (“Home Design”) has sued Defendants Turner Heritage Homes, Inc., et al. (“Turner”) for copyright infringement on Home Design’s architectural floor plan HDS-2089. According to Home Design, two of Turner’s floor plans, the Laurent and the Dakota, infringe on HDS-2089. Home Design’s lawsuit went to trial before the district court, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of Home Design, awarding $127,760 in damages. Turner moved for judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict under Rule 50(b), which the district court granted. We affirm.
This appeal concerns an award of attorney’s fees by the district court to Charles Lantz, who was the defendant in a suit brought by Richard Bell under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501 et seq., which was later voluntarily dismissed. Bell does not challenge the court’s decision to award fees, but contests the amount of fees awarded.