The Meso decision is of interest because it is contrary to the position taken by the Northern District of California court in its1991 decision, SQL Solutions, Inc. Roche Diagnostics GMBH decision, the Delaware Court of Chancery held that a reverse triangular merger is not an assignment by operation of law, meaning that licensor consent is not required for the surviving entity to retain the target company’s rights, benefits and obligations under an existing technology license.įor background, in a prior post, we discussed the impact of common M&A structures, as well as the impact of common anti-assignment provisions, on the assignability of contracts of the target company (in other words, whether or not the target company is required to obtain a third party’s consent to “assign” a contract in a M&A transaction). Emiabata’s appeal of his transferred suspension claims because we lack jurisdiction to review the transfer.On February 22, 2013, in its Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. We affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal of the termination claims, and we dismiss Mr. The Claims Court concluded that the termination claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata (claim preclusion) and that it lacked jurisdiction over the suspension claims it dismissed the termination claims while transferring the suspension claims to the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. Emiabata repeats his earlier challenge to the termination of his contract and adds a new claim that the USPS improperly put him on a “suspension list” of persons prevented from obtaining USPS contracts (or subcontracts). In the present action, initially brought in district court but transferred to the Claims Court, Mr. He brought the first action in the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court), which granted the United States summary judgment, a judgment we affirmed. This appeal involves Philip Emiabata’s second action against the United States brought to seek damages for the termination of his mail delivery contract by the U.S. We affirm the Board’s dismissal because the Board properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction. The Board dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. Holmes-Smith appealed the decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). After her claim was denied by the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (“OWCP”), Ms. Holmes-Smith sought monetary benefits for an injury that she alleges resulted from her work as an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Merit Systems Protection Board(Nonprecedential) However, Roche cannot infringe these patents, directly or by inducement, for Roche has owned these patents since 2007. The majority reverses the judgment of induced infringement on statute of limitations grounds, but affirms direct infringement of the ’939 patent. The jury found direct infringement of the ’939 patent and induced infringement of the ’779 and ’729 patents. I focus on the three patents found infringed at trial: U.S. Meso Scale Diagnostics (MSD or Meso) does not own or have exclusive rights to these patents, and has no right to control their use in areas outside of the designated Research Program-as I shall discuss. In 2007, Roche purchased the patents in suit from IGEN International, via IGEN’s patent-holding company BioVeris Corporation. On Meso’s cross-appeal, we vacate the district court’s judgment of noninfringement with respect to three additional patents and remand. We affirm on direct infringement, reverse on induced infringement, vacate the damages award, and remand for a new trial on damages. Roche Diagnostics Corporation and BioVeris Corporation (collectively, “Roche”) appeal a final judgment from the District of Delaware sustaining the jury’s verdict that Roche violated exclusive license rights belonging to Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC (“Meso”) by directly infringing one patent claim and inducing infringement of three other patent claims. Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC(Precedential) Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued an erratum. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in employment and government contract cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Court of Federal Claims respectively. Notably, Judge Newman wrote a dissenting opinion. The case addresses issues related to direct infringement and inducement of infringement. This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |