Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Tolmar, Inc.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Tolmar, Inc. The Federal Circuit granted the joint motion to remand so the district court can act on its indicative ruling, but expressly took no position on whether vacatur of the final judgment is appropriate under Bancorp. Each side bears its own costs. Counsel handling settled appeals should note that the Federal Circuit will facilitate a remand for an indicative-ruling consent judgment but will leave the Bancorp vacatur analysis entirely to the district court—meaning vacatur of the underlying merits judgment is not guaranteed even after settlement. Remanded; mandate issued May 5, 2026. Parties settled all claims and jointly moved to remand in light of the district court's April 3, 2026 indicative ruling under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 that it would vacate the March 13, 2024 final judgment and enter a consent judgment if remanded. The Federal Circuit granted the remand but explicitly reserved the Bancorp question, directing the district court to apply United States Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994), when deciding whether to vacate its prior judgment. Under Bancorp, vacatur on mootness caused by settlement is disfavored absent exceptional circumstances—the district court retains discretion to deny vacatur even with a consent judgment in hand. The order is nonprecedential and resolves only the procedural remand; no merits issues were decided by the Federal Circuit. Each side bears its own costs, consistent with a negotiated resolution. remand non-precedential standing / jurisdiction remand non-precedential standing / jurisdiction remand non-precedential