FedCircuitBlog

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a much-anticipated patent case, United States v. Arthrex, Inc. The first issue for consideration by the Court is whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, administrative patent judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are principal or inferior officers. The second issue is, if administrative patent judges are indeed principal officers, whether the Federal Circuit properly cured any Appointments Clause defect through the remedy it provided. This is our argument preview.

Next week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. As in the past several months, the court will hear most of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. Notably, however, as discussed in our recent post, “Panels B, E, H, K, and N will only be available through the online audio stream” on the Federal Circuit’s new YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene 17 panels to consider about 65 cases. Of these 65 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 43. Of the argued cases, three attracted amicus briefs: one in a tax case, one in a patent case, and one in a death benefit case. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

This morning, the Federal Circuit and the Court of Federal Claims issued another joint order extending limitations on access to the Federal Courts Building, this time extending the limitations until March 31, 2021. The Federal Circuit also issued a notice with additional information related to the order. Here is the text from the court’s notice.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming the dismissal of a government contracts case as time-barred. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order late yesterday denying a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order.

One of the three cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is a death benefit case entitled Rolfingsmeyer v. Office of Personnel Management. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision denying Patricia Rolfingsmeyer a survivor annuity and a basic employee death benefit based on the death of Tina Sammons, her alleged common law spouse. This is our argument preview.

Today, the Federal Circuit announced that, starting with next month’s court session, it will begin offering a new live audio streaming program on the Federal Circuit’s new YouTube channel. Next month one oral argument will be streamed each day, but in April the court plans to live stream every oral argument using YouTube. Here is the text of today’s announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a copyright case, vacating a decision by the Court of Federal Claims, which had absolved the U.S. Navy of copyright infringement. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received new reply briefs in two cases that have been granted certiorari: (1) Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. and (2) United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• The Court received five new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• One new response brief was filed with the Court in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
• One new amicus brief was filed by a non-profit advocacy organization, US Inventor, Inc., in the new case Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
• Hikma filed a waiver of its right to respond to the petition in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in six cases.

Here are the details.

This month we highlight two scholarly articles related to the Federal Circuit.

• Certiorari in Patent Cases
• The (Unnoticed) Revitalization of the Doctrine of Equivalents

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a nonprecedential errata, and a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion, the text of the errata, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.