This week the Federal Circuit will hold 11 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 41 cases. Notable cases include Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. EMC Corp., and Keith Manufacturing Co. v. Butterfield.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
As previewed on this blog, Sanofi will present arguments related to the patent law doctrine of obviousness. The first issue is whether “obviousness may be shown even when the prior art did not ‘expressly articulate’ or even implicitly ‘suggest’” a modification to the prior art. The second, related issue is whether “the teachings of the challenged patents-in-suit, rather than the prior art,” are sufficient to show that a person of skill in the art “would have had a reason to modify the prior art” to support a conclusion of obviousness. This case will be argued on Thursday at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 402.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.
Another case previewed on this blog involves a patent licensing dispute between Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft and Sirius XM Radio. The court will address whether the term “irrevocable” in a patent license precludes any forfeiture of licensed rights, and how any such forfeiture could or should affect the sublicensing of a previously licensed patent.This case will be argued on Friday, September 6 at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 402.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. EMC Corp.
Another interesting case previewed on this blog is a patent case involving Intellectual Ventures and EMC. The court will consider the argument that during an inter partes review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board inappropriately premised its obviousness finding on expert testimony that represents gap-filling. This case will be argued on Wednesday, September 4 at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 203.
Keith Manufacturing Co. v. Butterfield
The fourth case previewed on this blog this month deals with a procedural issue. The court will hear arguments about whether a “stipulated dismissal with prejudice functions as a ‘judgment’ under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a), allowing the defendant to move for an award of attorney’s fees.” This case will be argued on Tuesday, September 3 at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 402.