MOORE, Circuit Judge. Athena Cosmetics, Inc. (Athena) appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment that Athena violated California's unfair competition law (UCL) by marketing, distributing and selling, without regulatory approval, products that qualify as drugs. Athena also challenges the court's entry of a nationwide injunction and the denial of a motion for judgment on the pleadings that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) preempts Allergan, Inc.'s (Allergan) UCL...
TARANTO, Circuit Judge. The United States sued Great American Insurance Company of New York (also known as American National Fire Insurance Company) and Washington International Insurance Company in the Court of International Trade, seeking payment of antidumping duties covered by surety bonds the two companies had issued. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the government on the bonds now at issue, but denied the government's motion to amend the judgment to include post- and...
O'MALLEY, Circuit Judge. This appeal arises from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sidense Corporation ("Sidense"), holding that it did not infringe Kilopass Technology, Inc.'s ("Kilopass's") U.S. Patents 6,940,751 ("the '751 patent"), 6,777,757, and 6,856,540. Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. Sidense Corp., No. 10-2066, 2012 WL 3545286 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 16, 2012). We summarily affirmed that decision under...
This disposition is nonprecedential. TARANTO, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs AstraZeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hassle, AstraZeneca LP, KBI Inc., and KBI-E Inc. (collectively, AstraZeneca) sued Defendants Hanmi USA, Inc., Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi Science Co., Ltd., formerly Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd. (collectively, Hanmi). Invoking 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2), AstraZeneca alleged that a drug Hanmi proposed to market falls within claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,714,...
This disposition is nonprecedential PER CURIUM. Albert W. Wohlwend appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("Veterans Court") denying his motion to recall mandate of an earlier dismissal of his appeal as untimely. Wohlwend v. Shinseki, No. 08-0356, 2012 WL 2873604 (Vet. App. July 13, 2012) ("Vet. Ct. Order"). In denying the appeal, the Veterans Court refused to equitably toll the filing deadline set forth in 38 U.S.C. 7266(a) (2012). Because attorney abandonment...
This disposition is nonprecedential JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
This disposition is nonprecedential LINN, Circuit Judge. Cognex Corporation and Cognex Technology & Investment Corporation (collectively, "Cognex") appeal from a decision of the United States International Trade Commission ("Commission") finding that respondents, including MVTec Software GmbH and MVTec, LLC (collectively, "MVTec"), did not violate section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended in 19 U.S.C. 1337 ("section 337"), by the importation, sale for importation, or sale following...
RADER, Chief Judge. The International Trade Commission determined that Motorola Mobility LLC (Motorola) violated 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by importing and selling mobile devices that infringe Microsoft Corporation's U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ('566 patent). Because substantial evidence supports the Commission's determinations that Motorola did not show that the asserted claims are invalid, and that Microsoft showed that it satisfied the domestic industry...
BRYSON, Circuit Judge. This is a pure statutory construction case. The proper construction of the statute, as applied to this case, is not obvious, as evidenced by the fact that the Court of Federal Claims and a district court have both construed the statute differently than we do. In the end, however, we conclude that the language and purpose of the statute are best served by adopting the construction proposed by the appellant. I The statute at issue is the Surface Mining Control and...
TARANTO, Circuit Judge. CBT Flint Partners, LLC, sued Return Path, Inc., and Cisco IronPort Systems, LLC, in the Northern District of Georgia for patent infringement. After deciding the merits of the case against CBT, the district court ruled that CBT should have to pay the defendants their "costs," which the clerk taxed at $49,824.60 for Return Path and $268,311.12 for Cisco. In the present appeal by CBT, we hold that the district court erred in its interpretation of the statutory provision...
O'MALLEY, Circuit Judge. We address related appeals from rulings of the U.S. International Trade Commission ("the Commission"). First, we consider the propriety of the Commission's limited exclusion order barring importation of optical scanning devices and a related cease and desist order. We vacate the cease and desist order, vacate the limited exclusion order in part, and remand so that the order can be revised to bar only a subset of the scanners at issue. Resolution of this appeal turns...
This disposition is nonprecedential. PER CURIAM. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
This disposition is nonprecedential. PER CURIAM. Shelia Winsett ("Winsett") appeals from the order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the "Veterans Court") denying her petition for a writ of mandamus and imposing sanctions for frivolous filings. Winsett v. Shinseki, No. 12-2664, 2012 WL 5360974 (Vet. App. Nov. 1, 2012). Because the Veterans Court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. BACKGROUND Before us is Winsett's eleventh appeal to this court relating to...
This disposition is nonprecedential. JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
This disposition is nonprecedential. PER CURIAM. Pro se Appellant Frederick Foster appeals the following orders and opinion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: (1) a July 23, 2012 opinion dismissing his claims against Appellee United States Postal Service ("USPS") under the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act ("PAEA") and the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"); (2) an August 13, 2012 order denying his motions for sanctions against USPS; (3) an...
This disposition is nonprecedential. JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
PROST, Circuit Judge. In this patent infringement case, Tolmar, Inc. challenges the district court's holding that the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,579,377 (`377 patent); 7,737,181 (`181 patent); 7,834,060 (`060 patent); 7,838,558 (`558 patent); and 7,868,044 (`044 patent), which are owned by Galderma Laboratories, L.P., Galderma S.A., and Galderma Research and Development, S.N.C. (collectively, "Galderma") are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103. We find that the district court erred in finding...
This disposition is nonprecedential. PER CURIAM. Ms. Inez O. Steele petitions for review of a Final Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board ("the Board") dismissing her Motion for Payment of Attorney Fees as untimely. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. BACKGROUND Ms. Steele applied for the lump sum death benefits of a federal employee who died without a survivor and without designating a beneficiary. The Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") denied her application and authorized...
This disposition is nonprecedential. PER CURIAM. Mr. Haase appeals from the district court's order that Appellees are entitled to recover (1) costs as the prevailing party in this case, and (2) monetary sanctions related to discovery violations by Mr. Haase and others. In previous appeals related to this case, we affirmed the district court's imposition of monetary sanctions, affirmed the grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that Appellees did not misappropriate a trade secret, and...
WALLACH, Circuit Judge. Marva Sneed pursued her claim for survivor benefits in the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") for eight years. After receiving an adverse decision from the Board of Veterans' Appeals ("Board"), Ms. Sneed promptly contacted an attorney to represent her in an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("Veterans Court"). Only one day before the deadline to file a notice of appeal, however, Ms. Sneed received a letter saying the attorney would not...
