PAI Corp. v. US, 10-5003, involved a plaintiff's bid protest case challenging the government's award of a support services contract to Innovative Technology Partnerships, LLC (ITP) by the Department of Energy's Office of Secure Transportation, claiming that the contracting officer's organizational conflict of interest created an advantage to ITP over other bidders. In affirmed the trial court's entry of judgment in favor of the government, the court held that the contracting officer fully complied with the Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR) requirements. Also, the plaintiff failed to establish that there was any significant potential conflict that provided ITP with an unfair competitive advantage during the procurement.
Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 10-1246, concerned a patent infringement suit, related to a patent for an extended release formulations of guaifenesin, (an expectorant used to thin, loosen, and help expel mucus that causes congestion). In reversing the district court's judgment that the guaifenesin product described in defendant's ANDA would not infringe the asserted claims of plaintiff's patent, the court held that plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact on infringement under the proper construction of the term equivalent, sufficient to preclude summary judgment. Court also held that the district court properly denied summary judgment of noninfringement on the limitation "immediate release form which becomes fully bioavailable in the subject's stomach." Lastly, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 34 on the doctrine of equivalents.
- Full text of PAI Corp. v. US, 10-5003
- Full text of Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 10-1246