HIF BIO v. Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals, No. 06-1522 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2010)

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

HIF BIO, INC.

AND BIZBIOTECH CO., LTD.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

YUNG SHIN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIAL

CO., LTD.

(DOING BUSINESS AS YUNG SHIN

PHARMACEUTICALS AND YUNG SHIN PHARM.

IND. CO. LTD.),

YUNG ZIP CHEMICAL CO., LTD., FANG-YU LEE,

AND CHE-MING TENG,

Defendants,

and

CARLSBAD TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

FISH AND RICHARDSON P.C.,

AND Y. ROCKY TSAO,

Defendants.

2006-1522

2HIF BIO v. YUNG SHIN PHARMA 2

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in case no. 05-CV-07976, Judge Dean D. Pregerson.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge,* GAJARSA, Circuit Judge,

and HOLDERMAN, Chief District Judge.**

ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Carlsbad Technology, Inc. filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The petition for panel rehearing was considered by the panel that heard the appeal. The panel grants the petition for panel rehearing for the limited purpose of amending page 16, lines 12-18 of the issued opinion. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for panel rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of amending the following language on page 16, lines 12-18 of the issued opinion:

Because the second and fourth causes of action arise under § 1338(a), the district court abused its discretion in remanding those causes of action the First Amended Complaint to state court. See Hunter Douglas, Inc., 153 F.3d at 1328; Baker, 387 F.3d at 656-57. However, on remand the district court should dismiss both the second and fourth causes of action under Rule 12(b)(6) because3 3 HIF BIO v. YUNG SHIN PHARMA

plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the district court has discretion to decide on remand whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining causes of action. Additionally, because the remaining state law claims do not arise under federal law, the district should remand them to California state court.

(2) The petition for panel rehearing is otherwise denied.

F OR THE COURT

June 14, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc: Bub-Joo S. Lee, Esq.

Glenn W. Rhodes, Esq.