FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, since our last update the Court issued its decision. As for pending petitions, no new petitions were filed; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; and two reply briefs were filed in patent cases. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, one dismissing an appeal and one responding to a petition for a writ of mandamus. This morning the court released one nonprecedential opinion, two nonprecedential orders, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The opinion comes in response to a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board.  One of the nonprecedential orders comes in response to a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the other dismisses an appeal. Here are introductions to the opinions and orders related to petitions as well as links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new responses were filed in response to a petition raising a question related to correction of inventorship; a citation of supplemental authority was filed in a case related to the Hatch-Waxman Act; and the court denied one petition in another case raising questions related to correction of inventorship. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released seven nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, two come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and two come in response to petitions for review of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the summary affirmances.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article reporting how the “Trump administration said it will appeal a judge’s authority to order across-the-board refunds of all tariffs ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court”;
• a blog post discussing how the “Solicitor General has now filed the government’s brief in opposition in Hyatt v. Squires, . . . urging the Supreme Court to leave the Federal Circuit’s prosecution laches doctrine undisturbed”;
• a blog post suggesting a patent case pending in Texas “is notable” given the patent owner’s argument “that as a matter of law ongoing infringement constitutes irreparable harm, because . . . federal courts are obligated to apply the law of equity as it would have been understood” as of 1789; and
• an article explaining the Federal Circuit’s decision not to hold oral arguments in August is “because infrastructure work is being done on its courthouse.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, OpenSky cross appeals to challenge sanctions issued by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office as part of an inter partes review proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, this case is related to VLSI Technology LLC v. OpenSky Industries, LLC, which was argued in May. Judges Dyk, Linn, and Reyna heard the oral argument last week. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. Two of the opinions come in takings cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware, and one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the summary affirmance.

Last month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Wyeth LLC v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Wyeth appeals a lower court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law of invalidity. The case presents questions related to claim construction as well as whether pre-issuance provisional rights under the Patent Act extend to induced infringement. Judges Lourie, Linn, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions and two nonprecedential opinions. One of the precedential opinions comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; one comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and one comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of Illinois, and the other comes in response to a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. We highlight:

• an article discussing how the Supreme Court’s decision “may make generic drugmakers less vulnerable to patent ‌lawsuits involving so-called ‘skinny labels’”;
• an article similarly reporting how the Supreme Court’s decision “is expected to strengthen legal protections for generic manufacturers that launch products using the Hatch-Waxman Act’s ‘carve-out’ process”;
• a blog post suggesting the Supreme Court’s decision “scolded” the Federal Circuit “for its recent approach” and “has potentially far-reaching implications for the induced infringement standard across sectors”; and
• an article emphasizing that “all nine justices” joined Justice Jackson’s opinion in this “closely watched pharmaceutical patent dispute.”