Plaintiff moved to dismiss all claims and counterclaims in a patent infringement dispute for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A medical advocacy group, who sought relief against the government over the safety of mifepristone, failed to prove on appeal that they were entitled to relief.

Legal expenses incurred by generic drug manufacturers to defend against patent infringement lawsuits were tax-deductible where they were ordinary and necessary business expenses as patent litigation was separate from the FDA approval process for ANDAs.

Defendants' ANDA did not result in liability for infringement of patent claims that the court found invalid as obvious based on the combined teachings of the prior art.

Court declined to grant patent infringement defendant judgment on the pleadings based on prosecution history estoppel where the evidentiary record was not developed enough to determine whether plaintiff's amendments to its patents were related to patentability.

A patent licensor could issue a license to a future continuation patent that was ultimately not issued to the licensor by expressly including future continuation patents in the scope of the license since permitting the eventual patent owner to sue for infringement of the continuation patent would undermine rights acquired for consideration by the licensee.

The court granted plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings in part and denied in part.