The Supreme Court of the United States announced decisions in two cases this morning:

Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories v. Novo Nordisk, No. 10-844: When the Food and Drug Administration considers whether a proposed generic drug would infringe a patent held by the manufacturer of the drug’s brand-name version, it assumes the manufacturer’s description of the scope of its patent, known as a use code, is accurate. This case presents the question whether Congress has authorized a generic company to challenge a use code’s accuracy by bringing a counterclaim against the brand manufacturer in a patent infringement suit. Reversing a Federal Circuit decision to the contrary, the Court today held that a generic manufacturer may use a counterclaim to force correction of a use code that inaccurately describes the brand’s patent as covering a particular method of using a drug.

The Court’s opinion is available here.

Filarsky v. Delia, No. 10-1018: A city government hired petitioner, a private attorney, to conduct an investigation of respondent, a firefighter for the city. Respondent eventually sued, alleging violations of his federal rights. The district court granted summary judgment to petitioner on the basis of qualified immunity, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding he was not entitled to seek qualified immunity because he was a private attorney, not a full-time city employee. Today, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that a private individual temporarily retained by the government to carry out its work is entitled to seek qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

The Court’s opinion is available here.