NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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
__________________________
HIF 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) because
* Paul R. Michel retired from the position of
Chief Judge on May 31, 2010.
** The Honorable James F. Holderman, Chief
Judge, United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
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.
FOR THE COURT
June 14, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly
—————————— ——————————
Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk
cc: Bub-Joo S. Lee, Esq.
Glenn W. Rhodes, Esq.