Waiting on the Supreme Court, and FAA Overtime Compensation

By Gabriella Khorasanee, JD on March 26, 2014 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Another week passed, and still no word whether the Supreme Court will hear a decision originating in the Federal Circuit, that could have an effect on how soon generic versions of a drug show up on the market, reports Reuters. And in more recent Federal Circuit jurisprudence, the court looks at overtime compensation for Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") air-traffic control specialists.

Teva et al., v. Sandoz, Inc., et al.

Teva manufactures Copaxone, a multiple-sclerosis drug, and has been seeking to delay introduction of generic competing drugs. In a patent infringement claim against Novartis's Sandoz, Mylan and Momenta, the Federal Circuit "upheld four Teva patents that expire in May while invalidating a separate patent that would have blocked generic competition until September 2015," according to Bloomberg.

Earlier this year, Teva filed a petition for writ of certiorari, and after two conferences, the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will grant, or deny, cert. On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its order list with no mention of Teva, and the docket now reflects that the petition has been distributed for conference (for the third time) later this week, on March 28, 2014.

Abbey, et al. v. United States

Former and current air traffic controllers sued the United States alleging that the FAA's compensation of overtime in the form of time-off (compensatory time and credit hours) violated the time-and-a-half requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Court of Federal Claims ruled in the controllers' favor, and the Government appealed.

Though the court noted that generally the FLSA applies to the FAA, a question remained as to whether authorizations that allow "the FAA to depart from the otherwise-applicable commands of" the FLSA apply to the "FAA policies on compensatory time and credit hours in lieu of FLSA overtime pay." As such, it vacated the Court of Federal Claims' decision, and remanded. Judge O'Malley concurred in part, and dissented because he did not agree that the FAA could adopt policies in violation of the FLSA.

Related Resources:

Copied to clipboard